Hi, no the data_added field was one per document.
2009/2/1 Erik Hatcher <e...@ehatchersolutions.com>

> Is your date_added field multiValued and you've assigned multiple to some
> documents?
>
>        Erik
>
>
> On Jan 31, 2009, at 4:12 PM, James Brady wrote:
>
>  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 are more terms than documents in
>> field "date_added", but it's impossible to sort on tokenized fields
>> at
>>
>> org.apache.lucene.search.FieldCacheImpl$10.createValue(FieldCacheImpl.java:379)
>> at
>> org.apache.lucene.search.FieldCacheImpl$Cache.get(FieldCacheImpl.java:72)
>> at
>>
>> org.apache.lucene.search.FieldCacheImpl.getStringIndex(FieldCacheImpl.java:352)
>> at
>>
>> org.apache.solr.search.function.ReverseOrdFieldSource.getValues(ReverseOrdFieldSource.java:55)
>> at
>>
>> org.apache.solr.search.function.ReciprocalFloatFunction.getValues(ReciprocalFloatFunction.java:56)
>> at
>>
>> org.apache.solr.search.function.FunctionQuery$AllScorer.<init>(FunctionQuery.java:103)
>> at
>>
>> org.apache.solr.search.function.FunctionQuery$FunctionWeight.scorer(FunctionQuery.java:81)
>> at
>>
>> org.apache.lucene.search.BooleanQuery$BooleanWeight.scorer(BooleanQuery.java:232)
>> at org.apache.lucene.search.IndexSearcher.search(IndexSearcher.java:143)
>> at org.apache.lucene.search.Searcher.search(Searcher.java:118)
>> ...
>>
>> The date_added field is stored as a vanilla Solr date type:
>>   <fieldType name="date" class="solr.DateField" sortMissingLast="true"
>> omitNorms="true"/>
>>
>> I'm having lots of other problems (un-related) with corrupt indices -
>> could
>> it be that in running the org.apache.lucene.index.CheckIndex utility, and
>> losing some documents in the process, the ordinal part of my boost
>> function
>> is permanently broken?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> James
>>
>
>

Reply via email to