Because the lucene term ordering is lexicographic,
if you index strings "11", "100", and "150",
the terms in the index "100","11","150" in this order.
Koji
Jim Adams wrote:
Why is this?
Thanks.
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Koji Sekiguchi wrote:
Jim Adams wrote:
True, which
Why is this?
Thanks.
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Koji Sekiguchi wrote:
> Jim Adams wrote:
>
>> True, which is what I'll probably do, but is there any way to do this
>> using
>> 'string'? Actually I have even seen this with date fields, which seems
>> very
>> odd (more data being returned
Hi,I'm following the recipe here:
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrRelevancyFAQ#head-b1b1cdedcb9cd9bfd9c994709b4d7e540359b1fdfor
boosting recent documents: bf=recip(rord(date_added),1,1000,1000)
On some of my servers I've started getting errors like this:
SEVERE: java.lang.RuntimeException: there
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 6:20 PM, fei dong wrote:
> Thank you very much! Your suggestion helps me a lot. After adding the
> copyField, solr need to be re-indexed.
>
> Here is another problem. I have a links_no field in solr index which means
> how many download links this song has. I want to integ
Thank you very much! Your suggestion helps me a lot. After adding the
copyField, solr need to be re-indexed.
Here is another problem. I have a links_no field in solr index which means
how many download links this song has. I want to integrate the text
relevance with the links_no. ie:
mp3^5 artist
Jim Adams wrote:
True, which is what I'll probably do, but is there any way to do this using
'string'? Actually I have even seen this with date fields, which seems very
odd (more data being returned than I expected).
If you want to stick with string, index "011" instead of "11".
Koji
