Jorn Thanks for the input, I learned something new today! https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/BloomIndexComponent this works per segment level, but our requirement is per document level.
Thanks, Mohandoss. On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 11:41 AM Jörn Franke <jornfra...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am not 100% sure if Solr has something out of the box, but you could > implement a bloom filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_filter and > store it in Solr. It is a probabilistic data structure, which is not > growing, but can achieve your use case. > However it has a caveat: it can, for example in your case, only say for > sure if a person A has NOT visited person B. If you want to know if Person > A has visited person B then there might be (with a known probability) false > positives. > > Nevertheless, it still seems to address your use case as you want to show > only not visited profiles. > > > Am 06.09.2019 um 07:43 schrieb Doss <itsmed...@gmail.com>: > > > > Dear Experts, > > > > For a matchmaking portal, we have one requirement where in, if a customer > > viewed complete details of a bride or groom then we have to exclude that > > profile id from further search results. Currently, along with other > details > > we are storing the viewed profile ids in a field (multivalued field) > > against that bride or groom's details. > > > > Eg., if A viewed B, then in B's document under the field saw_me we will > add > > A's id > > > > while searching, lets say, the currently searching members id is 123456 > > then we will fire a query like > > > > fq=-saw_me:(123456) > > > > Problem #1: The saw_me field value is growing like anything. > > Problem #2: Removal of ids which are deleted from the base. Right now we > > are doing this job as follows > > Query #1: fq=saw_me:(123456)&fl=DocId //Get all document ids > > which has the deleted id as part of saw_me field. > > Query #2: {"DociId":"234567","saw_me":{"remove":"123456"} > //loop > > through the results got through the 1st query and fire the update query > one > > by one > > > > We feel that this method of handling is not that optimum, so we need > expert > > advice. Please guide. >
