lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Brown <...@intelcompute.com>
Subject Re: what is the recommended way to store locations?
Date Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:06:37 GMT
Expanding CA to California sounds like a use for a synonyms config
file?  you can then do that translation at index and query time, if
needed.


On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 12:01:33 -0400, Jason Toy <jasontoy@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Otis,
>  Thanks for the response. So just to make sure I understand clearly, so I
> would store a location field of either text or ngram fields
> of the format "San Francisco, California, United States"  and use full text
>  search against that so someone could search for San Francisco or California
> and get that hit?
> I've also added some code in the application level so that if someone
> searches for CA, it gets expanded to California during search time, would it
> be better to store this in the doc directly or keep it in application code?
> 
> Jason
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Otis Gospodnetic <
> otis_gospodnetic@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> Jason,
>>
>> That sounds pretty simple and works well if you plan on allowing
>> fielded/structured search.
>> If not, you could alternatively stick all geo values in a single text field
>> and avoid dealing with multiple fields.
>>
>> You may also want to use ngram fields instead of text if you want to still
>> match that San Fransisco oops typo.
>>
>> Otis
>> ----
>> Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
>> Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Jason Toy <jasontoy@gmail.com>
>> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
>> > Cc:
>> > Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2011 11:27 AM
>> > Subject: what is the recommended way to store locations?
>> >
>> > In our current system ,we have 3 fields for location,  city, state, and
>> > country.    People in our system search for one of those 3 strings.
>> > So a user can search for "San Francisco" or "California".
>> > In solr I store
>> > those 3 fields as strings and when a search happens I search with an OR
>> > statement across those 3 fields.
>> >
>> > Is there a more efficient way to store this data storage wise and/or
>> speed
>> > wise?  We don't currently plan to use any spacial features like "3
>> > miles
>> > near SF".
>> >
>>


Mime
View raw message