number of documents and even if i try
with index only and not store i am still have to deal with duplicate hit -
becuase all i want is the primary document
Is there a better approach to the problem?
Thanks
Bharani
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Multiple-Values--Structured
Thanks Yonik - I didnt know that before. But i am not sure how i can use the
range queries on this compound field so that i dont get the wrong result.
-Bharani
Yonik Seeley wrote:
You could index both a compound field and the components separately.
This could be simplified by sending
in those
lines too. Any idea how you can do this with out changes to solr?
Thanks
Bharani
Jed Reynolds-2 wrote:
Bharani wrote:
Hi,
I have got two sets of document
1) Primary Document
2) Occurrences of primary document
Since there is no such thing as join i can either
a) Post
extracted from the compound
comp field
Is this possible with solr?
Thanks
Bharani
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Combining-Proximity---Range-search-tf4450179.html#a12696909
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi,
Is it possible to turn off the store option based on field value. I would
like to index and store the primary document but for all revisions i only
need to index it and not store it.
Thanks
Bharani
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Control-index-store-at-document
I am trying my best to figure out the correct way to do this
http://www.nabble.com/forum/ViewPost.jtp?post=12456399framed=y
I just came across the collapseFilter ( solr 236). I think i will give that
a try.
Thanks hossman for the reply
Bharani
hossman wrote:
: My document will have
a response
1s
Hope that helps
-Bharani
Park, Michael wrote:
Thanks! That's a good suggestion too. I'll look into that.
Actually, I was hoping someone had used a reliable JS library that
accepted JSON.
-Original Message-
From: Ryan McKinley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday
