Hmmmm, Why isn't q helpful? You can specify field:value pairs for a q clause. so you can pretty easily tack on an AND check:true.
I'd try that and measure performance before trying more complex solutions.... Or do I misunderstand the problem? HTH Erick On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:21 AM, MitchK <mitc...@web.de> wrote: > > Hello community, > > I am not sure about what is the best way to handle the following problem: > I have got an index, let's say with 2mio documents, and there is a > check-field. > The check-field contains on boolean values (TRUE/FALSE). > > What is the best way to query only documents with a TRUE check-value? > q, fq or a facetting-index? > > When I have a look at fq I think that I am running out of memory, if my > index is growing too large. > The normal query (q) seems to be a bad solution, because it's not > constructed for this use-case. > What about facetting? I have no idea, whether facetting would be a good > solution. > > If it makes a difference: Most of the queries will be run against true > check-values. > > The only alternative I have in mind is building two indexes; one with > checked values and one with unchecked (false) values. > > Thank you for sharing experiences. > > Kind regards, > - Mitch > -- > View this message in context: > http://old.nabble.com/Filter-Query-or-Main-Query-or-facetting--tp27804169p27804169.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
