I know this might sound strange, but what if the data was formatted like so:
{"id": 1, stats: [ {"stat1": {"name":"stat1", "group": "x", "value": 1}},
{"stat2": {"name": "stat2", "group": "x", "value": 5}} ] }
Would the default extractor flatten this to :
stats.stat1.name = stat1, stats.stat1.group = x, stats.stat1.value = 1
stats.stat2.name = stat2, stats.stat2.group = x, stats.stat2.value = 5
As far as indexing is concerned, would this be the same as {"stats":
{"stat1": {...}, "stat2": {...}} ?
Andrew
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Andrew Zeneski <and...@andrewzeneski.com>
wrote:
> That would be ideal I know, but would require a huge effort and is
> something I am saving as a last resort. A custom extractor should allow me
> to massage the value into a more index friendly format before sending to
> Solr but allowing the value to remain in its current form.
>
> I have no experience with this so I'm not sure the LoE involved in such a
> task. Any advice is surely appreciated! Thanks for your input.
>
> Andrew
>
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Alexander Sicular <sicul...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> That might happen.
>>
>> Could you rearrange your data to look like
>>
>> Id: ... , stats: {
>> Stat1: [ ... ],
>> Stat2: [ ... ],
>> ...
>>
>> }
>>
>> Then you could do a stats_stat1 > 1 query. It's also more space
>> efficient. Derived vs explicit naming. Stat(N) could even be an array of
>> hashes like [{value:..., dates:...},...] if you needed that.
>>
>> -Alexander
>>
>> @siculars
>> http://siculars.posthaven.com
>>
>> Sent from my iRotaryPhone
>>
>> On Oct 26, 2014, at 10:43, Andrew Zeneski <and...@andrewzeneski.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Yes right, I was tired when I typed this; stats should be an array:
>>
>> {"id": 1, "stats": [{ "name": "stat1", "value": 1 }, {"name": "stat2",
>> "value": 5}]}
>> {"id": 2, "stats": [{ "name": "stat3", "value": 2 }, {"name": "stat1",
>> "value": 3}]}
>> {"id": 3, "stats": [{ "name": "stat2", "value": 3 }, {"name": "stat3",
>> "value": 1}}]
>>
>> I haven't tried it either, but I was worried that stats_name = stat1 and
>> stats_value > 1 would return both ID 1 and 2 because both have a name
>> stats1 and both have some value > 1.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Alexander Sicular <sicul...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Haven't tried it out but should stats be an array?
>>>
>>> And the query would be something like
>>>
>>> Stats_name = stat1 and stats_value > 1
>>>
>>> I think the extractor flattens everything and separates with underscores.
>>>
>>> -Alexander
>>>
>>> @siculars
>>> http://siculars.posthaven.com
>>>
>>> Sent from my iRotaryPhone
>>>
>>> > On Oct 25, 2014, at 22:53, Andrew Zeneski <and...@andrewzeneski.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi All, I'm trying to determine if a use case is supported by
>>> Yokozuna or not.
>>> >
>>> > With a stored value that looks like:
>>> >
>>> > {"id": 1, "stats": { "name": "stat1", "value": 1 }, {"name": "stat2",
>>> "value": 5}}
>>> > {"id": 2, "stats": { "name": "stat3", "value": 2 }, {"name": "stat1",
>>> "value": 3}}
>>> > {"id": 3, "stats": { "name": "stat2", "value": 3 }, {"name": "stat3",
>>> "value": 1}}
>>> >
>>> > I want to find those who have stat1 > 2. The result should be id 2.
>>> >
>>> > I believe Solr 4.8 would handle this as a block-join, but I don't
>>> think Yokozuna supports this feature. My first thought was a custom
>>> extractor; are there other options I'm not seeing?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks!
>>> >
>>> > Andrew
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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
