gsmiller commented on issue #12585: URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/12585#issuecomment-1741276611
Yeah, this is a good callout. I ran into this when adding more flexibility to association faceting a while back (making note that supporting, e.g., "min" would require rethinking these assumptions). My opinion is that the current assumption makes sense for the faceting support _currently available_, but I know there's conversation going on more generally about improving (rethinking?) aggregation capabilities in Lucene. My preference on this would be to, 1) leave this current behavior in place unless there is a use-case that's immediately blocked by it, but 2) include it in some broader rethinking of Lucene aggregation capabilities. As a side-note on that, I wonder if a successful approach to moving forward with some new aggregation thinking would be to _not_ try to modify the faceting module as-is, but rather spin up a new "aggregations" module under "sandbox" to start sketching out ideas. I think it will be difficult to retrofit more flexible aggregation capabilities into the faceting API that exists today, but maybe I'm wrong? OK, I'm off in the weeds now... -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
