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 Dorian Hoxha <do...@gmail.com> on 2017/04/07 23:40:19 UTC

Re: SortingMergePolicy in solr 6.4.2

Did you get any update on this ?

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Sahil Agarwal <sa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The SortingMergePolicy does not seem to get implemeted.
>
> The csv file gets indexed without errors. But when I search for a term, the
> results returned are not sorted by Marks.
>
> Following is a toy project in Solr 6.4.2 on which I tried to use
> SortingMergePolicyFactory.
>
> Just showing the changes that I did in the core's config files. Please tell
> me if any other info is needed.
> I used the basic_configs when creating core:
> create_core -c corename -d basic_configs
>
>
> managed-schema
>
> <schema name="example-basic" version="1.6">
> .
> .
> .
> <field name="Marks" type="long" sortMissingLast="true" docValues="true"
> indexed="true" stored="true"/> <field name="Name" type="strings" indexed=
> "true" stored="true"/> <field name="Subject" type="strings" indexed="true"
> stored="true"/> <field name="_root_" type="string" docValues="false"
> indexed
> ="true" stored="false"/> <field name="_text_" type="text_general"
> multiValued="true" indexed="true" stored="false"/> <field name="_version_"
> type="long" indexed="false" stored="false"/> <field name="id" type="string"
> multiValued="false" indexed="true" required="true" stored="true"/></schema>
>
>
> solrconfig.xml
>
> <indexConfig>
> <mergePolicyFactory class="org.apache.solr.index.
> SortingMergePolicyFactory">
> <str name="sort">Marks desc</str>    <str name="wrapped.prefix">inner</
> str>
>   <str name="inner.class">org.apache.solr.index.TieredMergePolicyFactory</
> str> </mergePolicyFactory>
> ​
> </indexConfig>
> ​
>
> 1.csv
>
> id,Name,Subject,Marks 1,Sahil Agarwal,Computers,1108 2,Ian
> Roberts,Maths,7077 3,Karan Vatsa,English,6092 4,Amit Williams,Maths,3924
> 5,Vani Agarwal,Computers,4263 6,Brenda Gupta,Computers,2309
> .
> .
> ​300000 rows​
>
> What can be the problem??
>