Hi David, I confess that even after looking at earlier posts in the thread your subject refers to, I'm not entirely sure exactly what problem you're trying to solve.
However, aspects of your desired solution seem quite similar to what the OP on this thread over on java-user was trying to do: http://www.lucidimagination.com/search/document/61851fe5651331cc/increase_number_of_available_positions If the solution described over there is not applicable to what you're trying to do, I apologize for the noise. Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: David Smiley (@MITRE.org) [mailto:dsmi...@mitre.org] > Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 6:01 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: One item, multiple fields, and range queries > > > It's been three years since this discussion and I'm unaware of any work > that > has plugged this capability gap in Lucene/Solr. In summary, it would > be > very, *very*, useful to be able to query multiple multi-valued fields > and > require that such matches occur at the same index offset. I'm working > on an > app where I should be able to get away with a single multi-valued field > and > query with slop. If I have time to get fancy, I could induce a delta > position increment gap scheme since I know my inner fields can't be > very > long, and thus I can avoid the slop (a performance win) but still use a > phrase query. But for those of you wanting numeric range queries or > other > things where the data is indexed differently, this isn't going to work. > Using multiple fields is cleaner but there's no way to cross-query > multi-valued fields with restraining the position increment gap. Has > anyone > out there done this yet? > > I think it's a tough problem. One piece of the solution would be to > configure a position increment gap such that the gap between values > isn't > fixed, it'd be the delta to the next multiple of 1000 (where 1000 is > configurable). This would allow you to know which value offset a given > searched term is from based on the term's position as queried from > Lucene. > That's the easy part. But then somehow you'd have to cross- > correlate/filter > multiple query results taking the intersection based on common offsets. > Surely that would take some serious hacking and I have no clue how > feasible > that is. Thoughts? > > ~ David Smiley > -- > View this message in context: http://n3.nabble.com/One-item-multiple- > fields-and-range-queries-tp475030p682227.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
