quot;.
>
> Yeah, yeah Jack, understood. That was what I meant.
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> -Original Message- From: Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:07 AM
>
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Grouping and tokens
>
> O
mprakash Ramamoorthy
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:07 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Grouping and tokens
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Jack Krupansky
wrote:
Oops, sorry for the "Solr" answer. In Lucene you need to simply index the
same value, once as a raw strin
t; Yeah, thanks Jack. Was just wondering if there would be a better alternate
rather than 2x storing. But I don't see any. Thanks again.
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> -Original Message- From: Jack Krupansky
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 11:21 PM
>
> To: java-user@luce
nt: Monday, February 18, 2013 11:21 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Grouping and tokens
Okay, so, fields that would normally need to be tokenized must be stored as
both raw strings for grouping and tokenized text for keyword search. Simply
use copyField to copy from one to the other
, February 18, 2013 11:13 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Grouping and tokens
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Jack Krupansky
wrote:
Please clarify exactly what you want to group by - give a specific example
that makes it clear what terms should affect grouping and which shouldn&#
riginal Message- From: Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 6:12 AM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Grouping and tokens
>
>
> Hello all,
>
> From the grouping javadoc, I read that fields that are supposed to be
> grouped should no
-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Grouping and tokens
Hello all,
From the grouping javadoc, I read that fields that are supposed to be
grouped should not be tokenized. I have an use case where the user has the
freedom to group by any field during search time.
Now that only tokenized fields are eligibl
