Well, my feeling is that you are going in the wrong direction. And that
maybe you need to focus more on separating your - non solr - storage
representation and your - solr - search oriented representation.

E.g. if your issue is storage, maybe you can focus on stored=false
indexed=true approach.

Regards,
    Alex

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018, 10:13 AM Balanathagiri Ayyasamypalanivel, <
bala.cit...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Any suggestions?
> Regards,
> Bala.
>
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018, 2:46 PM Balanathagiri Ayyasamypalanivel <
> bala.cit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for the reply, actually we are planning to optimize the huge
> volume
> > of data.
> >
> > For example, in our current system we have as below, so we can do facet
> > pivot or stats to get the sum of asset_td for each acct, but the data
> > growing lot whenever more asset getting added.
> >
> > Id | Accts| assetid | asset_td
> > 1| Acct1 | asset1 | 20
> > 2| Acct1 | asset2 | 30
> > 3| Acct2 | asset3 | 10
> > 4| Acct3 | asset2 | 10
> >
> > So we planned to change as
> >
> > Id | Accts | asset_s
> > 1  | Acct1 | [{"asset1": "20", "asset2":"30"}]
> > 2  | Acct2 | [{"asset3": "10"}]
> > 3  | Acct3 | [{"asset2": "10"}]
> >
> > But only draw back here is we have to parse the json to do the sum of the
> > values, is there any other way to handle this scenario.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bala.
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018, 2:25 PM Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/26/2018 12:20 PM, Balanathagiri Ayyasamypalanivel wrote:
> >> > Currently I am storing json object type of values in string field in
> >> solr.
> >> > Using this field, in the code I am parsing json objects and doing sum
> of
> >> > the values under it.
> >> >
> >> > In solr, do we have any option in doing it by default when using the
> >> json
> >> > object field values.
> >>
> >> Even if you have JSON-formatted strings in Solr, Solr doesn't know
> >> this.  It has no idea that the data is JSON, and won't be able to do
> >> anything special with the info contained there.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Shawn
> >>
> >>
>

Reply via email to