Hmmm, there's no good way I can think of off the top of my head to do this. Whenever people find themselves thinking in terms of RDBMSs, I have to ask whether the problem is really appropriate for a search engine. And/or what the problem you're trying to solve with this approach is from a higher level. Perhaps there's another approach completely that would serve....
Best Erick On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Mark juszczec <mark.juszc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Erick > > Thanks very much for the reply. > > I typed this late Friday after work and tried to simplify the problem > description. I got something wrong. Hopefully this restatement is better: > > My PK is FLD1, FLD2 and FLD3 concatenated together. > > In some cases FLD1 and FLD2 can be the same. The ONLY differing field being > FLD3. > > Here's an example: > > PK FLD1 FLD2 FLD3 FLD4 FLD5 > AB0 A B 0 x y > AB1 A B 1 x y > CD0 C D 0 a b > CD1 C D 1 e f > > I want to write a query using only the terms FLD1 and FLD2 and ONLY get > back: > > A B x y > C D a b > C D e f > > Since FLD4 and FLD5 are the same for PK=AB0 and AB1, I only want one > occurrence of those records. > > Since FLD4 and FLD5 are different for PK=CD0 and CD1, I want BOTH > occurrences of those records. > > I'm hoping I can use wildcards to get FLD4 and FLD5. If not, I can use fl= > > I'm using edismax. > > We are also creating the query string on the fly. I suspect using SolrJ and > plugging the values into a bean would be easier - or do I have that wrong? > > I hope the tables of example data display properly. > > Mark > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Erick Erickson > <erickerick...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> This smells like an XY problem, can you back up and give a higher-level >> reason *why* you want this behavior? >> >> Because given your problem description, this seems like you are getting >> correct behavior no matter how you define the problem. You're essentially >> saying that you have two records with identical beginnings of your PK, >> why is it incorrect to give you both records? >> >> But, anyway, if you're searching on FLD1 and FLD2, then by definition >> you're going to get both records back or the search would be failing! >> >> Best >> Erick >> >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Mark juszczec <mark.juszc...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Hello everyone >> > >> > Let's say each record in my index contains fields named PK, FLD1, FLD2, >> FLD3 >> > .... FLD100 >> > >> > PK is my solr primary key and I'm creating it by concatenating >> > FLD1+FLD2+FLD3 and I'm guaranteed that combination will be unique >> > >> > Let's say 2 of these records have FLD1 = A and FLD2 = B. I am unsure >> about >> > the remaining fields >> > >> > Right now, if I do a query specifying FLD1 = A and FLD2 = B then I get >> both >> > records. I only want 1. >> > >> > Research says I should use faceting. But this: >> > >> > q=FLD1:A and FLD2:B & rows=500 & defType=edismax & fl=FLD1, FLD2 & >> > facet=true & facet_field=FLD1 & facet_field=FLD2 >> > >> > gives me 2 records. >> > >> > In fact, it gives me the same results as: >> > >> > q=FLD1:A and FLD2:B & rows=500 & defType=edismax & fl=FLD1, FLD2 >> > >> > I'm wrong somewhere, but I'm unsure where. >> > >> > Is faceting the right way to go or should I be using grouping? >> > >> > Curiously, when I use grouping like this: >> > >> > q=FLD1:A and FLD2:B &rows=500 &defType=edismax &indent=true &fl=FLD1, >> FLD2 >> > &group=true &group.field=FLD1 &group.field=FLD2 >> > >> > I get 2 records as well. >> > >> > Has anyone dealt with mimicing "select distinct" in Solr? >> > >> > Any advice would be very appreciated. >> > >> > Mark >> > >> >
