Thanks
Much appreciate the guidance. I think I will go with the single field
approach for now. Also will take a look at the URL below and come
back if I have any ideas.
Guna
On Jan 25, 2009, at 12:49 AM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar wrote:
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Gunaranjan Chandraraju <
chandrar...@apple.com> wrote:
Thanks
This sounds redundant to me - to store the fields separately and then
concat all of them to one copy field again.
Sometimes that may be the only way. For example, if you want to
facet on
some of those fields, as well as to search them all.
My XML is like this
<address street="XYZ" state="CA" country="1" type="shipping" ...>
I am currently using XPATH or XSL to separate them into individual
indexed
fields like: address_state_1, address_type_1 etc. in SOLR.
From what you say, it looks to me that I might as well just treat the
entire address as a single 'text field' and search within the text
after
tokenizing. This way I don't need to have the _1, _2 as the single
text
field will contain the information together (and thus grouped - so
I know
which is shipping/billing etc?). Will there be any performance
difference
between this and the copy field approach?
No I think, one field may even be better since you are creating less
number
of fields. If you never need to do faceting and you don't want to
get the
contents of each address field separately. This is your best option.
Is there no other way (programmatic) to search across multiple
fields? I
did take a quick look at dismax but again it needs the field names
to be
specifically mentioned in the config file or in the query. I can't
do this
as I am not able to predict the number of fields (e.g. credit cards
a person
can have?).
I like SOLR, but to me, this seems to be a very common and simple
search
scenario/pattern - however its implementation in SOLR is appearing
to be not
very straightforward. (My apologies, if I on the wrong track here
because
I don't understand SOLR well. )
There had been some discussion on having wildcards in field names.
But I
guess nobody contributed (or had the need?) for the complete
proposal. Copy
Fields give a lot of flexibility which is what most people use.
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FieldAliasesAndGlobsInParams
--
Regards,
Shalin Shekhar Mangar.
