So I have tables like this: Users UserSales UserHistory UserAddresses UserNotes ClientAddress CalenderEvent Articles Blogs
Just seems odd to me, jamming on these tables into a single index. But I guess the idea of using a 'type' field to quality exactly what I am searching is a good idea, in case I need to filter for only 'articles' or blogs or contacts etc. But there might be 50 fields if I do this no? On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Chantal Ackermann < chantal.ackerm...@btelligent.de> wrote: > Hi Ahmed, > > fields that are empty do not impact the index. It's different from a > database. > I have text fields for different languages and per document there is > always only one of the languages set (the text fields for the other > languages are empty/not set). It works all very well and fast. > > I wonder more about what you describe as "unrelated data" - why would > you want to put unrelated data into a single index? If you want to > search on all the data and return mixed results there surely must be > some kind of relation between the documents? > > Chantal > > On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 21:33 +0200, S Ahmed wrote: > > I understand (and its straightforward) when you want to create a index > for > > something simple like Products. > > > > But how do you go about creating a Solr index when you have data coming > from > > 10-15 database tables, and the tables have unrelated data? > > > > The issue is then you would have many 'columns' in your index, and they > will > > be NULL for much of the data since you are trying to shove 15 db tables > into > > a single Solr/Lucense index. > > > > > > This must be a common problem, what are the potential solutions? > > > >
