cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Property allow multiple search issue

unknown-user
Champ on-the-rise
Champ on-the-rise
In my aspect  have a property which set multiple true, and I want to disable tokenised for any item value. so i write this:

<property name="sv:pn">
   <type>d:text</type>
   <multiple>true</multiple>
   <index enabled="true">
   <index>
     <atomic>true</atomic>
     <stored>false</stored>
     <tokenised>false</tokenised>
   </index>
</property>
but i found when add index block,  it will always can't been searched (via lucene)
only removed index block search can work,
and I have tried set stored to true (sorry, i'm not very clear about stored, atomic,  but seems whether add or remove not affect this issue)

How can I disable tokenize item value in above property ?
Thanks in advance.
2 REPLIES 2

unknown-user
Champ on-the-rise
Champ on-the-rise
Please let me explain my quesiton more:
assume one document its property svSmiley Tonguen  has below values
cn_art
mds

another document its property svSmiley Tonguen has:
cn
mds_tr

when I search with …pn:'cn', it will also search cn_art, how to avoid this?  Smiley Sad   (I said that set tokenized false not works)

Another idea is if just use normal text field instead of multiple , and I want to use comma to seperate every value,
f.g: cn_art, mds, cn, mds_tr
then how do I let lucene know the comma is seperator to corporate with tokenized ?

Thanks

micyks
Champ in-the-making
Champ in-the-making
Hi,

first of all check whether your definition shouldn't look like



<property name="sv:pn">
   <type>d:text</type>
   <multiple>true</multiple>
   <index enabled="true">
     <atomic>true</atomic>
     <stored>false</stored>
     <tokenised>false</tokenised>
   </index>
</property>


second remember that after you make changes to the model like this you should reindex lucene.

Last thing is that I also try something similar but not on multiple values. So maybe you should check if such configuration works on not multiple, if it doesn't maybe there is a problem in you definition.

Thanks