Hi All,
I have below requirement for my business:
select?fl=*&fq=MODIFY_TS:[2020-06-23T18:30:00Z TO *]&fq=PHY_KEY2: "HQ010699" OR
PHY_KEY2: "HQ010377" OR PHY_KEY2: "HQ010396" OR PHY_KEY2: "HQ010399" OR
PHY_KEY2: "HQ010404" OR PHY_KEY2: "HQ010419" OR PHY_KEY2: "HQ010426" OR
PHY_KEY2: "HQ010452"
>
> > Unfortunately our documents now need to be grouped as well (product
> > variants into items) and that grouping query needs to work on that
> grouping
> > instead. As far as I'm aware you can't do nested grouping in Solr.
> >
> > In summary we w
"Unfortunately our documents now need to be grouped as well (product
variants into items) and that grouping query needs to work on that grouping
instead. As far as I'm aware you can't do nested grouping in Solr."
What about collapsing the product variants into a group Head w
that grouping query needs to work on that grouping
> instead. As far as I'm aware you can't do nested grouping in Solr.
>
> In summary we want to have product variants that get grouped into Items and
> then they get grouped by field and then sorted by another.
>
> The solut
well (product
variants into items) and that grouping query needs to work on that grouping
instead. As far as I'm aware you can't do nested grouping in Solr.
In summary we want to have product variants that get grouped into Items and
then they get grouped by field and then sorted by another
ted a lot of time into the new aggregation
framework which has aspects of both grouping and pivot faceting
* (nested) grouping/pivot faceting are building blocks that make Solr more
attractive for analytical workload and not just full-text search queries -
see http://blog.sematext.com/2013/11/09/presen
Hey Martijn,
Did you find a good workaround?
Rih
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 5:35 AM, Martijn Laarman wrote:
> Thanks Mike,
>
> I've opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2553 for this.
>
> It's exciting to hear a workable implementation might be possible!
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at
Thanks Mike,
I've opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2553 for this.
It's exciting to hear a workable implementation might be possible!
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Michael McCandless <
luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> Can you open a Lucene issue (against the new grouping m
Can you open a Lucene issue (against the new grouping module) for
this?
I think this is a compelling use case that we should try to support.
In theory, with the "general" two-pass grouping collector, this should
be possible, but will require three passes, and we also must
generalize the 2nd pass
Did you try pivot?
Bill Bell
Sent from mobile
On May 27, 2011, at 4:13 AM, Martijn Laarman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if this issue had already been raised.
>
> We currently have a use case where nested field collapsing would be really
> helpful
>
> I.e Collapse on field X then Collap
Hi,
I was wondering if this issue had already been raised.
We currently have a use case where nested field collapsing would be really
helpful
I.e Collapse on field X then Collapse on Field Y within the groups returned
by field X
The current behavior of specifying multiple fields seem to be retu
I've found the same issue.
As long as I know, the only solution is to create a copy field which combines
both-fields values and facet on this field.
If one of the fields has a set of distinct values known in advance and its
cardinality c is not too big, it isn't a great problem: you can do with c
Hi,
I was wondering if this issue had already been raised.
We currently have a use case where nested field collapsing would be really
helpful
I.e Collapse on field X then Collapse on Field Y within the groups returned
by field X
The current behavior of specifying multiple fields seem to be retur
13 matches
Mail list logo
