Make sure you check the padding of the number. I can no longer locate in the
wiki where it said you need to pad integer types, but as far as I remember
you need to pad the integer out to at least 10 digits. You should be able to
set a custom padding size like so:
{field, [ {name, "account"}, {type, integer}, {*padding*_size, 20} ]}, but I
could not make it work before with a padding size of less than 10. I may be
wrong now with the new release, but give it a try.
Instead of 5555, use 0000005555, and it should index properly.
- Joe Lambert
joseph.g.lamb...@gmail.com
+86 13656213284
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 6:12 AM, Gary William Flake <g...@flake.org> wrote:
> Per the advice from my earlier question (about retrieving records in a
> particular sort order), I've been playing with Riak Search in an attempt to
> use a range query over a numeric field to get the sort order that I want (or
> at least the right range).
>
> For the life of me, I can't get Riak Search to index on a numeric value,
> even if it is a *_num field. I know that Lucene had some issues in the past
> with having to get around the standard parsers stripping out numbers, but I
> had assume that since Riak Search explicitly has a numeric type in its
> schema, that this would be supported out of the box.
>
> Anyhow, I've tried every combination of setting up fields name as *_num,
> with values as strings or as unquoted ints, with using different encoding,
> etc. The net of it is that I can't query on anything numeric.
>
> What's the trick?
>
> Thanks,
> -- GWF
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> riak-users mailing list
> riak-users@lists.basho.com
> http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
>
_______________________________________________
riak-users mailing list
riak-users@lists.basho.com
http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
