Was there a solution here? Is there a ticket related to the sort=max(FIELD)
solution?
-brian
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Sorting-on-multiValued-fields-via-function-query-tp2681833p3340145.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive
+1 for both Chris's and Yonik's comments.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
As the code stands now: we fail fast and let the person building hte index
make a
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
Also... if lucene is already capable of sorting on multi-valued field by
choosing the largest value largest vs. smallest is presumably just
arbitrary there, there is presumably no performance implication to choosing
Here is a work around. Stick the high value and low value into other fields.
Use those fields for sorting.
Bill Bell
Sent from mobile
On Mar 17, 2011, at 8:49 AM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
By the way, this could be done automatically by Solr or Lucene behind the
scenes.
Bill Bell
Sent from mobile
On Mar 17, 2011, at 9:02 AM, Bill Bell billnb...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is a work around. Stick the high value and low value into other fields.
Use those fields for sorting.
Bill
Aha, oh well, not quite as good/flexible as I hoped.
Still, if lucene is now behaving somewhat more predictably/rationally
when sorting on multi-valued fields, then I think, in response to your
other email on a similar thread, perhaps SOLR-2339 is now a mistake.
When lucene was returning
: But if lucene now can sort a multi-valued field without crashing when there
: are 'too many' unique values, and with easily described and predictable
: semantics (use the minimal value in the multi-valued field as sort key) --
: then it probably makes more sense for Solr to let you do that if
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
As the code stands now: we fail fast and let the person building hte index
make a decision.
Indexing two fields when one could work is unfortunate though.
I think what we should support (eventually) is a max()
on
descending sorts and the minimum value on ascending sorts. Is there any
movement towards implementing this sort of behavior?
Best,
-Harish
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Sorting-on-multiValued-fields-via-function-query-tp2681833p2688288.html
Sent from
towards implementing this sort of behavior?
Best,
-Harish
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Sorting-on-multiValued-fields-via-function-query-tp2681833p2688288.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
: However, many of our multiValued fields are single valued for the majority
: of documents in our index so we may not have noticed the incorrect sorting
: behaviors.
that would make sense ... if you use a multiValued field as if it were
single valued, you would never enocunter a problem. if
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
: However, many of our multiValued fields are single valued for the majority
: of documents in our index so we may not have noticed the incorrect sorting
: behaviors.
that would make sense ... if you use a
Huh, so lucene is actually doing what has been commonly described as
impossible in Solr?
But is Solr trunk, as the OP person seemed to report, still not aware of
this and raising on a sort on multi-valued field, instead of just
saying, okay, we'll just pass it to lucene anyway and go with
I agree with this and it is even needed for function sorting for multvalued
fields. See geohash patch for one wY to deal with multivalued fields on
distance. Not ideal but it works efficiently.
Bill Bell
Sent from mobile
On Mar 16, 2011, at 4:08 PM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
, of a
multiValued field?
Thanks,
-Harish
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Sorting-on-multiValued-fields-via-function-query-tp2681833p2681833.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
/solr-1-4-enterprise-search-server/book
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Sorting-on-multiValued-fields-via-function-query-tp2681833p2685485.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
16 matches
Mail list logo
