Not so much that it's a corner case in the sense of being unusual
neccesarily (I'm not sure), it's just something that fundamentally
doesn't fit well into lucene's architecture.
I'm not sure that filing a JIRA will be much use, it's really unclear
how one would get lucene to do this, it would be signficant work to do,
and it's unlikely any Solr developer is going to decide to spend
signficant time on it unless they need it for their own clients.
On 8/3/2011 11:40 AM, Olson, Ron wrote:
*Sigh*...I had thought maybe reversing it would work, but that would require
creating a whole new index, on a separate core, as the existing index is used
for other purposes. Plus, given the volume of data, that would be a big deal,
update-wise. What would be better would be to remove that particular sort
option-button on the webpage. ;)
I'll create a Jira issue, but in the meanwhile I'll have to come up with something else.
I guess I didn't realize how much of a "corner case" this problem is. :)
Thanks for the suggestions!
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Smiley, David W. [mailto:dsmi...@mitre.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:26 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Strategies for sorting by array, when you can't sort by array?
Hi Ron.
This is an interesting problem you have. One idea would be to create an index
with the entity relationship going in the other direction. So instead of one
to many, go many to one. You would end up with multiple documents with varying
names but repeated parent entity information -- perhaps simply using just an ID
which is used as a lookup. Do a search on this name field, sorting by a
non-tokenized variant of the name field. Use Result-Grouping to consolidate
multiple matches of a name to the same parent document. This whole idea might
very well be academic since duplicating all the parent entity information for
searching on that too might be a bit much than you care to bother with. And I
don't think Solr 4's join feature addresses this use case. In the end, I think
Solr could be modified to support this, with some work. It would make a good
feature request in JIRA.
~ David Smiley
On Aug 3, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Olson, Ron wrote:
Hi all-
Well, this is a problem. I have a list of names as a multi-valued field and I
am searching on this field and need to return the results sorted. I know from
searching and reading the documentation (and getting the error) that sorting on
a multi-valued field isn't possible. Okay, so, what I haven't found is any real
good solution/workaround to the problem. I was wondering what strategies others
have done to overcome this particular situation; collapsing the individual
names into a single field with copyField doesn't work because the name searched
may not be the first name in the field.
Thanks for any hints/tips/tricks.
Ron
DISCLAIMER: This electronic message, including any attachments, files or
documents, is intended only for the addressee and may contain CONFIDENTIAL,
PROPRIETARY or LEGALLY PRIVILEGED information. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, copying or
distribution of this message or any of the information included in or with it
is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently
delete and destroy this message and its attachments, along with any copies
thereof. This message does not create any contractual obligation on behalf of
the sender or Law Bulletin Publishing Company.
Thank you.
DISCLAIMER: This electronic message, including any attachments, files or
documents, is intended only for the addressee and may contain CONFIDENTIAL,
PROPRIETARY or LEGALLY PRIVILEGED information. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, copying or
distribution of this message or any of the information included in or with it
is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently
delete and destroy this message and its attachments, along with any copies
thereof. This message does not create any contractual obligation on behalf of
the sender or Law Bulletin Publishing Company.
Thank you.
