You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to solr-user@lucene.apache.org by jayakeerthi s <ma...@gmail.com> on 2012/08/01 13:58:57 UTC

Urgent: Facetable but not Searchable Field

All,

We have a requirement, where we need to implement 2 fields as Facetable,
but the values of the fields should not be Searchable.

Please let me know is this feature Supported in Solr If yes what would be
the Configuration to be done in Schema.xml and Solrconfig.xml to achieve
the same.

This is kind of urgent as we need to reply on the functionality.


Thanks in advance,

Jay

Re: Urgent: Facetable but not Searchable Field

Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>.
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:58 AM, jayakeerthi s <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have a requirement, where we need to implement 2 fields as Facetable,
> but the values of the fields should not be Searchable.

The user fields "uf" feature of the edismax parser may work for you:

http://wiki.apache.org/solr/ExtendedDisMax#uf_.28User_Fields.29

-Yonik
http://lucidimagination.com

Re: Urgent: Facetable but not Searchable Field

Posted by Jack Krupansky <ja...@basetechnology.com>.
Oops. Obviously facet fields must be indexed. Not sure what I was thinking 
at the moment.

-- Jack Krupansky

-----Original Message----- 
From: Michael Kuhlmann
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 8:54 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Urgent: Facetable but not Searchable Field

On 01.08.2012 15:40, Jack Krupansky wrote:
> The "indexed" and "stored" field attributes are independent, so you can
> define a facet field as "stored" but not "indexed" (stored="true"
> indexed="false"), so that the field can be faceted but not indexed.

?

A field must be indexed to be used for faceting.

-Kuli 


Re: Urgent: Facetable but not Searchable Field

Posted by Michael Kuhlmann <ku...@solarier.de>.
On 01.08.2012 15:40, Jack Krupansky wrote:
> The "indexed" and "stored" field attributes are independent, so you can
> define a facet field as "stored" but not "indexed" (stored="true"
> indexed="false"), so that the field can be faceted but not indexed.

?

A field must be indexed to be used for faceting.

-Kuli

Re: Urgent: Facetable but not Searchable Field

Posted by Jack Krupansky <ja...@basetechnology.com>.
The "indexed" and "stored" field attributes are independent, so you can 
define a facet field as "stored" but not "indexed" (stored="true" 
indexed="false"), so that the field can be faceted but not indexed.

In addition, you can also use a copyField to copy the original values for an 
indexed field (before the values get analyzed and transformed to be placed 
in the index as terms) to a stored field to facet them (or vice versa).

-- Jack Krupansky

-----Original Message----- 
From: jayakeerthi s
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 6:58 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org ; solr-user-help@lucene.apache.org ; 
solr-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Urgent: Facetable but not Searchable Field

All,

We have a requirement, where we need to implement 2 fields as Facetable,
but the values of the fields should not be Searchable.

Please let me know is this feature Supported in Solr If yes what would be
the Configuration to be done in Schema.xml and Solrconfig.xml to achieve
the same.

This is kind of urgent as we need to reply on the functionality.


Thanks in advance,

Jay 


Re: Urgent: Facetable but not Searchable Field

Posted by Michael Kuhlmann <ku...@solarier.de>.
On 01.08.2012 13:58, jayakeerthi s wrote:
> We have a requirement, where we need to implement 2 fields as Facetable,
> but the values of the fields should not be Searchable.

Simply don't search for it, then it's not searchable.

Or do I simply don't understand your question? As long as Dismax doesn't 
have the attribute in its qf parameter, it's not getting searched.

Or, if the user has direct access to Solr, then she can search for the 
attribute. And can delete the index, or crash the server, if she likes.

So the short anser is: No. Facettable fields must be searchable. But 
usually, this is no problem.

-Kuli