Yes:
solrquery.add("group.main", true);
solrquery.add("group.format", "simple");
James Dyer
E-Commerce Systems
Ingram Content Group
(615) 213-4311
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Skiles [mailto:daniel.ski...@docfinity.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 2:15 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Return records based on aggregate functions?
For response option 1, would I add the group.main=true and
group.format=simple parameters to the SolrQuery object?
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Dyer, James <james.d...@ingrambook.com>wrote:
> For the request end, you can just use something like:
>
> solrquery.add("group", true);
> ..etc..
>
> For the response, you have 3 options:
>
> 1. specify "group.main=true&group.format=simple" . (note: When I tested
> this on a nightly build from back in February I noticed a significant
> performance impact from using these params although I imagine the version
> that is committed to 3.3 does not have this problem.)
>
> This will return your 1-document-per-group as if it is a regular
> non-grouped query and the response will come back just like any other query.
> (see the wiki: http://wiki.apache.org/solr/Solrj#Reading_Data_from_Solr
> and the javadocs:
> http://lucene.apache.org/solr/api/overview-summary.htmlthen scroll to the
> solrj section.)
>
> 2. Full SolrJ support was just added to the 3.x branch so you'll have to
> use a nightly build (which ought to be stable & production-quality). See
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2637 for more information.
> After building the solrj documentation, look for classes that start with
> "Group"
>
> 3. See this posting on how to parse the response "by-hand". This is for a
> slightly older version of Field Collapsing than what was committed so it
> might not be 100% accurate.
> http://www.lucidimagination.com/search/document/148ba23aec5ee2d8/solrquery_api_for_adding_group_filter
>
> James Dyer
> E-Commerce Systems
> Ingram Content Group
> (615) 213-4311
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Skiles [mailto:daniel.ski...@docfinity.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 1:32 PM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Return records based on aggregate functions?
>
> Woah. That looks like exactly what I need. Thanks you very much. Is
> there
> any documentation for how to do that using the SolrJ API?
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Dyer, James <james.d...@ingrambook.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Daniel,
> >
> > This looks like a good usecase for FieldCollapsing (see
> > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FieldCollapsing). Perhaps try something
> like:
> >
> > &group=true&group.field=documentId&group.limit=1&group.sort=version desc
> >
> > James Dyer
> > E-Commerce Systems
> > Ingram Content Group
> > (615) 213-4311
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniel Skiles [mailto:daniel.ski...@docfinity.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 1:20 PM
> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Return records based on aggregate functions?
> >
> > I've recently started using Solr and I'm stumped by a problem I'm
> currently
> > encountering. Given that I can't really find anything close to what I'm
> > trying to do on Google or the mailing lists, I figured I'd ask if anyone
> > here had suggestions on how to do it.
> >
> > I currently have a schema that looks more or less like this:
> >
> > uniqueId (string) -- Unique identifier for a record
> > documentId (string) -- Id of document represented by this record
> > contents (string) -- contents of file represented by this record
> > version (float) -- Numeric representation of the version of this document
> >
> >
> > What I'd like to do is submit a query to the server that returns records
> > that match against contents, but only if the record has a version field
> > that
> > is the largest value for all records that share the same documentId.
> >
> > In other words, I'd like to be able to only search the most recent
> version
> > of a document in some scenarios.
> >
> > Is this possible with Solr? I'm at an early enough phase that I'm also
> > able
> > to modify my solr schema if necessary.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Daniel
> >
>
