Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
From: Daniel Noll <daniel@nuix.com>
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene equivalent of SQL DISTINCT for a specific field's "stored
 values"
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:55:00 +1000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7
References: <11822265.post@talk.nabble.com>
In-Reply-To: <11822265.post@talk.nabble.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200707271255.01042.daniel@nuix.com>

On Friday 27 July 2007 12:50:12 TimF wrote:
> However, obviously this returns the list of distinct terms,
>    Hello , World , Goodbye , Foo , Bar , Mad
>
> not the list of distinct stored values,
>    Hello World , Goodbye World , Foo Bar , Mad Mad Mad Mad World
>
> I could add another field to the index that is not tokenized and then
> enumerate the terms for that new field, but this seems like a hack, and it
> would also add size to the index in that I would be duplicating data for
> the category for each document.

That is certainly how I would do it.  This sort of thing only works with 
untokenised fields, unless you have somewhere else you can store the 
untokenised version which is quicker to iterate over.

Daniel


-- 
Daniel Noll
Nuix Pty Ltd
Suite 79, 89 Jones St, Ultimo NSW 2007, Australia    Ph: +61 2 9280 0699
Web: http://nuix.com/                               Fax: +61 2 9212 6902

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