Follow-up to "sorting tokenised field"

["Kauler, Leto S" <le...@education.tas.gov.au>]

Have been reading this thread
<http://www.mail-archive.com/lucene-user@jakarta.apache.org/msg11180.htm
l>.

Praveen Peddi (or anyone else), did you ever try the patch?  I would be
interested to know what sort of performance difference it makes.

I have been trying to create a "most-simple" solution to indexing and
sorting.  I was hoping that it would be possible to sort on our fields
without requiring the use (and therefore prior knowledge of) specific
sort fields.

Useful would be the ability to add a sort term to fields, along with
their regular terms.  If the field is not tokenised then a sort term
might not be necessary so the sort engine performs as normal, but if the
field is tokenised then the engine could use this defined sort term,
thus allowing all terms to be kept together in the one field.

I don't know what the technical implications of this is though.  Just a
thought.
--Leto

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER

Information in this transmission is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorised and you should delete/destroy all copies and notify the sender. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of the information contained in this transmission.

This disclaimer has been automatically added.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org