Re: Facet to part of search results

I wonder if you could increase the precision of your result set to reduce its size? If you have 10M results for a query but only the first 10K deserve to be represented by the faceting, what is it about those 10K that makes them better than the other 9.99M? For example if some items are boosted by

Re: Facet to part of search results

> On 3 Dec 2020, at 20:18, Shawn Heisey wrote: > > On 12/3/2020 9:55 AM, Jae Joo wrote: >> Is there any way to apply facet to the partial search result? >> For ex, we have 10m return by "dog" and like to apply facet to first 10K. >> Possible? > > The point of facets is to provide accurate numb

Re: Facet to part of search results

On 12/3/2020 9:55 AM, Jae Joo wrote: Is there any way to apply facet to the partial search result? For ex, we have 10m return by "dog" and like to apply facet to first 10K. Possible? The point of facets is to provide accurate numbers. What would it mean to only apply to the first 10K? If ther

Re: Facet Performance

queryResultCache doesn’t really help with faceting, even if it’s hit for the main query. That cache only stores a subset of the hits, and to facet properly you need the entire result set…. > On Jun 17, 2020, at 12:47 PM, James Bodkin > wrote: > > We've noticed that the filterCache uses a sig

Re: Facet Performance

We've noticed that the filterCache uses a significant amount of memory, as we've assigned 8GB Heap per instance. In total, we have 32 shards with 2 replicas, hence (8*32*2) 512G Heap space alone, further memory is required to ensure the index is always memory mapped for performance reasons. Ide

Re: Facet Performance

To expand a bit on what Erick said regarding performance: my sense is that the RefGuide assertion that "docValues=true" makes faceting "faster" could use some qualification/clarification. My take, fwiw: First, to reiterate/paraphrase what Erick said: the "faster" assertion is not comparing to "fac

Re: Facet Performance

Uninvertible is a safety mechanism to make sure that you don’t _unknowingly_ use a docValues=false field for faceting/grouping/sorting/function queries. The primary point of docValues=true is twofold: 1> reduce Java heap requirements by using the OS memory to hold it 2> uninverting can be expen

Re: Facet Performance

The large majority of the relevant fields have fewer than 20 unique values. We have two fields over that with 150 unique values and 5300 unique values retrospectively. At the moment, our filterCache is configured with a maximum size of 8192. From the DocValues documentation (https://lucene.apac

Re: Facet Performance

Ah, interesting! So if the number of possible values is low (like <= 10), it is faster to *not *use docvalues on that (indexed) faceted field? Does this hold true even when using faceting techniques like tag and exclusion? Thanks, Anthony On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:37 AM David Smiley wrote: > I

Re: Facet Performance

I strongly recommend setting indexed=true on a field you facet on for the purposes of efficient refinement (fq=field:value). But it strictly isn't required, as you have discovered. ~ David On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:02 AM Michael Gibney wrote: > facet.method=enum works by executing a query (ag

Re: Facet Performance

facet.method=enum works by executing a query (against indexed values) for each indexed value in a given field (which, for indexed=false, is "no values"). So that explains why facet.method=enum no longer works. I was going to suggest that you might not want to set indexed=false on the docValues face

Re: Facet Performance

Thanks, I've implemented some queries that improve the first-hit execution for faceting. Since turning off indexed on those fields, we've noticed that facet.method=enum no longer returns the facets when used. Using facet.method=fc/fcs is significantly slower compared to facet.method=enum for us

Re: Facet Performance

Ok, I see the disconnect... Necessary parts if the index are read from disk lazily. So your newSearcher or firstSearcher query needs to do whatever operation causes the relevant parts of the index to be read. In this case, probably just facet on all the fields you care about. I'd add sorting too if

Re: Facet Performance

I've been trying to build a query that I can use in newSearcher based off the information in your previous e-mail. I thought you meant to build a *:* query as per Query 1 in my previous e-mail but I'm still seeing the first-hit execution. Now I'm wondering if you meant to create a *:* query with

Re: Facet Performance

Did you try the autowarming like I mentioned in my previous e-mail? > On Jun 16, 2020, at 10:18 AM, James Bodkin > wrote: > > We've changed the schema to enable docValues for these fields and this led to > an improvement in the response time. We found a further improvement by also > switching

Re: Facet Performance

We've changed the schema to enable docValues for these fields and this led to an improvement in the response time. We found a further improvement by also switching off indexed as these fields are used for faceting and filtering only. Since those changes, we've found that the first-execution for q

Re: Facet Performance

I question whether fiterCache has anything to do with it, I suspect what’s really happening is that first time you’re reading the relevant bits from disk into memory. And to double check you should have docVaues enabled for all these fields. The “uninverting” process can be very expensive, and

Re: Facet Performance

We've run the performance test after changing the fields to be of the type string. We're seeing improved performance, especially after the first time the query has run. The first run is taking around 1-2 seconds rather than 6-8 seconds and when the filter cache is present, the response time is a

Re: Facet Performance

Could you explain why the performance is an issue for points-based fields? I've looked through the referenced issue (which is fixed in the version we are running) but I'm missing the link between the two. Is there an issue to improve this for points-based fields? We're going to change the field

Re: Facet Performance

There’s a lot of confusion about using points-based fields for faceting, see: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13227 for instance. Two options you might try: 1> copyField to a string field and facet on that (won’t work, of course, for any kind of interval/range facet) 2> use the deprec

Re: Facet Range by Distance generating count of field - need sum of the field

Hi Robert, How does this work? {!frange l=0 u=5} sum(geodist()) On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 at 21:10, Robert Scavilla wrote: > Thank yo in advance for your help. > > I need to get the sum of a pivot range field. The following query uses the > stats function to sum the *sumField* values. I'm trying to

RE: Facet Advice

.4907 bmo...@tiaa.org -Original Message- From: Shawn Heisey Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 5:40 AM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Facet Advice On 10/14/2019 3:25 PM, Moyer, Brett wrote: > Hello, looking for some advice, I have the suspicion we are doing Facets all >

Re: Facet Advice

On 10/14/2019 3:25 PM, Moyer, Brett wrote: Hello, looking for some advice, I have the suspicion we are doing Facets all wrong. We host financial information and recently "tagged" our pages with appropriate Facets. We have built a Flat design. Are we going at it the wrong way? In Solr we have a

Re: Facet Query performance

On 7/8/2019 12:00 PM, Midas A wrote: Number of Docs :50+ docs Index Size: 300 GB RAM: 256 GB JVM: 32 GB Half a million documents producing an index size of 300GB suggests *very* large documents. That typically produces an index with fields that have very high cardinality, due to text tok

Re: Facet Query performance

On 7/8/2019 3:08 AM, Midas A wrote: I have enabled docvalues on facet field but query is still taking time. How i can improve the Query time . docValues="true" multiValued="true" termVectors="true" /> *Query: * There's very little information here -- only a single field definition and th

Re: Facet Query performance

Hi How i can know whether DocValues are getting used or not ? Please help me here . On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 2:38 PM Midas A wrote: > Hi , > > I have enabled docvalues on facet field but query is still taking time. > > How i can improve the Query time . > docValues="true" multiValued="true" termV

Re: Facet on multicore search when one field exists only in one of cores

Hi Shawn,Thank you very much for your quick answer.The use of dynamic field "ignored" works, but it does not seem to be the correct way to solve the problem.We will try to equalize the cores. Em sexta-feira, 14 de junho de 2019 11:18:40 BRT, Shawn Heisey escreveu: On 6/14/2019 7:54 A

Re: Facet on multicore search when one field exists only in one of cores

On 6/14/2019 7:54 AM, Claudio R wrote: When I try this request to get facet of fields: fieldA, fieldB and fieldC on multicore search, I get error: http://localhost:8983/solr/core1/select?q=*:*&shards=localhost:8983/solr/core1,localhost:8983/solr/core2&fl=*,[shard]&facet=true&facet.field=fieldA&

Re: Facet count incorrect

You’ll have subtle, or not so subtle problems. String types are a single token, so a document with “my dog has fleas” will not be returned when searching for any of those 4 words. My definition there’s no position information in stored with the string type, so no phrases will work against docs i

Re: Facet count incorrect

Reindexing to alias is not always easy if it requires 2x resources. Just to be clear the issues you mentioned are mostly around faceting because we haven't seen any other search/retrieval issues. Or is that not accurate? On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 5:12 PM Erick Erickson wrote: > 1> I strongly recom

Re: Facet count incorrect

1> I strongly recommend you re-index into a new collection and switch to it with a collection alias rather than try to re-index all the docs. Segment merging with the same field with dissimilar definitions is not guaranteed to do the right thing. 2> No. There a few (very few) things that don’t

Re: Facet results polluting filter cache

Just a guess that this "pollution" occurs during refining counts for distributed facets. Perhaps, there's a way to avoid this "refinement" by tweaking some params. On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 7:48 PM summit wrote: > Hi, > > I have been digging into our filter cache's low hit rate and i have > discov

Re: facet values from stored values

I wrote some code to call an analysis chain in an update request processor then add those values to fields. I started with some work by Eric Hatcher then updated it for recent releases of Java. Look at this discussion to see if it is the kind of thing you want. http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/

Re: facet values from stored values

In a word, no. Performance would be horrible. I'd do the transformations in your indexing code to a docValuea field and facet on that field. On Sat, Sep 1, 2018, 07:17 nirsh wrote: > Hi, > > is there a way to return from the stored value of facets and not the > indexed > value? > we have normali

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Facet Sorting

: Chris, I was trying the below method for sorting the faceted buckets but : am seeing that the function query query($q) applies only to the score : from “q” parameter. My solr request has a combination of q, “bq” and : “bf” and it looks like the function query query($q) is calculating the : s

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Facet Sorting

Chris, I was trying the below method for sorting the faceted buckets but am seeing that the function query query($q) applies only to the score from “q” parameter. My solr request has a combination of q, “bq” and “bf” and it looks like the function query query($q) is calculating the scores only o

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Facet Sorting

Thank You Chris for an immediate response. I am using json facets and my question was for json facets and using solr 7.2.1. Will try your approach. Basically I want to use an average of the scores than the sum of the scores and sort those buckets based on the average score. The scores am assumin

Re: Facet Sorting

: If I want to plug in my own sorting for facets, what would be the best : approach. I know, out of the box, solr supports sort by facet count and : sort by alpha. I want to plug in my own sorting (say by relevancy). Is : there a way to do that? Where should I start with if I need to write a

Re: Facet Range with Stats

: I'd like to generate stats for the results of a facet range. : For example, calculate the mean sold price over a range of months. : Does anyone know how to do this? : This Jira issue seems to indicate its not yet possible. : [SOLR-6352] Let Stats Hang off of Range Facets - ASF JIRA This is poss

Re: Facet Range with Stats

Correction.  The solution below did not quite get what we need. I need the stats reports for the range. I'll keep digging on this one On ‎Friday‎, ‎May‎ ‎11‎, ‎2018‎ ‎10‎:‎59‎:‎45‎ ‎AM‎ ‎PDT, Jim Freeby wrote: I found a solution. If I use tags for the facet range definition and the st

Re: Facet Range with Stats

I found a solution. If I use tags for the facet range definition and the stats definition, I can include it in the facet pivot stats=true stats.field={!tag=piv1 percentiles='50'}price facet=true facet.range={!tag=r1}someDate f.someDate.facet.range.start=2018-01-01T00:00:00Z f.someDate.facet.range

Re: Facet full-text

On 3/6/2018 10:16 AM, Moncif Aidi wrote: I am using Solr to power faceting features for our application. I know that SOLR can do free text search but what is the best practice for faceting on common terms inside SOLR text fields? Based on everything below, there might be a little bit of confu

Re: Facet full-text

Hi, Faceting on text field requires use of field cache which can eat up a large heap and result in unstable Solr. It is recommended to have doc values enabled for field that you plan to do faceting on, but you cannot enable doc values on text field. It is recommended to do preprocessing of text

Re: Facet performance problem

On 2/20/2018 1:18 AM, LOPEZ-CORTES Mariano-ext wrote: We return a facet list of values in "motifPresence" field (person status). Status: [ ] status1 [x] status2 [x] status3 The user then selects 1 or multiple status (It's this step that we called "facet filtering

RE: Facet performance problem

solution? -Message d'origine- De : Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerick...@gmail.com] Envoyé : lundi 19 février 2018 18:18 À : solr-user Objet : Re: Facet performance problem I'm confused here. What do you mean by "facet filtering"? Your examples have no facets at all, just

Re: Facet performance problem

I'm confused here. What do you mean by "facet filtering"? Your examples have no facets at all, just a _filter query_. I'll assume you want to use filter query (fq), and faceting has nothing to do with it. This is one of the tricky bits of docValues. While it's _possible_ to search on a field that'

Re: Facet fields limits

None that I know of. On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 1:59 AM, Vincenzo D'Amore wrote: > Hi all, > > Do you know if there is a configuration parameter able to limit the number > of concurrent facets a user can submit in one request? > > Looking at documentation it seems is not possibile. > > Best regards,

Re: facet query when using word 'AND'

I typed the below then noticed that the field that has "I have a pen AND an apple" is called "body" and you're faceting and searching on a field called "suggest". The below is still relevant if there is still a problem though ;) Your problem isn't faceting, right? It's that you aren't matching any

Re: facet query when using word 'AND'

On 9/6/2017 3:48 AM, Noriyuki TAKEI wrote: > I use facet query,but I found it dose not work when using 'AND'. > > I woud like to use facet query using 'AND' as not Operator but simple word. With the standard or edismax parser, AND in all uppercase is interpreted as an operator.  There are two ways

Re: Facet on a Payload field type?

d,es ... whatever language the user wants) https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/6_6/other-parsers.html ...then use those results to translate the final output. : Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 14:12:38 -0500 : From: Webster Homer : Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org : To: solr-user@lucene.apache.or

Re: Facet on a Payload field type?

translations > for all instances of red -- not just that instance of red in that > singlular document. > > > > : Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 13:29:00 -0500 > : From: Webster Homer > : Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > : To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > : Subject: Re:

Re: Facet on a Payload field type?

stance of red in that singlular document. : Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 13:29:00 -0500 : From: Webster Homer : Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org : To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org : Subject: Re: Facet on a Payload field type? : : The issue is, that we lack translations for much of our attrib

Re: Facet on a Payload field type?

The issue is, that we lack translations for much of our attribute data. We do have English versions. The idea is to use the English values for the faceted values and for the filters, but be able to retrieve different language versions of the term to the caller. If we have a facet on color if the va

Re: Facet on a Payload field type?

: The payload idea was from my boss, it's similar to how they did this in : Endeca. ... : My alternate idea is to have sets of facet fields for different languages, : then let our service layer determine the correct one for the user's : language, but I'm curious as to how others have solve

RE: Facet on a Payload field type?

to encode language features into our text! -Original message- > From:Webster Homer > Sent: Wednesday 23rd August 2017 22:21 > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: Facet on a Payload field type? > > The payload idea was from my boss, it's similar to how

Re: Facet on a Payload field type?

The payload idea was from my boss, it's similar to how they did this in Endeca. I'm not sure I follow your idea about "mapping internal value to translated value". Would you care to elaborate? My alternate idea is to have sets of facet fields for different languages, then let our service layer dete

Re: Facet on a Payload field type?

Certainly more than a byte of information. The most common example is to have payloads encode floats.So if there is a limit, it's more likely to be 64bits On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Markus Jelsma wrote: > Technically they could, facetting is possible on TextField, but it would > be useless

RE: Facet on a Payload field type?

Technically they could, facetting is possible on TextField, but it would be useless for facetting. Payloads are only used for scoring via a custom Similarity. Payloads also can only contain one byte of information (or was it 64 bits?) Payloads are not something you want to use when dealing wit

Re: Facet is not working while querying with group

1. No it is with schema with some dynamic fields but facet fields are proper field 2. No copy field is stored field all are set as stored=false On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 10:21 PM Erick Erickson wrote: > OK, new collection. > > 1> With schemaless? When you add a document in schemaless mode, it >

Re: Facet is not working while querying with group

OK, new collection. 1> With schemaless? When you add a document in schemaless mode, it makes some guesses that may not play nice later. 2> Are you storing the _destination_ of any copyField? Atomic updates do odd things if you set stored="true" for fields that are destinations for atomic updates,

Re: Facet is not working while querying with group

No Shawn, I download the latest solr again then run without installing by command ./bin/solr -c after upload the fresh configset and create the new collection Then create a single document in solr after do atomic update and the same error occurs again. On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 7:53 PM Shawn Heisey

Re: Facet is not working while querying with group

On 6/20/2017 11:01 PM, Aman Deep Singh wrote: > If I am using docValues=false getting this exception > java.lang.IllegalStateException: Type mismatch: isBlibliShipping was > indexed with multiple values per document, use SORTED_SET instead at > org.apache.solr.uninverting.FieldCacheImpl$SortedDocVa

Re: Facet is not working while querying with group

Hi Shawn, If I am using docValues=false getting this exception java.lang.IllegalStateException: Type mismatch: isBlibliShipping was indexed with multiple values per document, use SORTED_SET instead at org.apache.solr.uninverting.FieldCacheImpl$SortedDocValuesCache.createValue(FieldCacheImpl.java:79

Re: Facet is not working while querying with group

On 6/20/2017 12:07 AM, Aman Deep Singh wrote: > Again the same problem started to occur and I haven't change any schema > It's only coming to the Numeric data types only (tint,tdouble) and that too > in group query only > If I search with string field type it works fine. > > Steps which i have foll

Re: Facet is not working while querying with group

Again the same problem started to occur and I haven't change any schema It's only coming to the Numeric data types only (tint,tdouble) and that too in group query only If I search with string field type it works fine. Steps which i have followed 1. drop the old collection 2. create the new

Re: Facet is not working while querying with group

bq: Is their any roadmap to avoid the remanent data issue, Not that I've ever heard of. Well, Uwe did show a process for adding docValues to an existing index here: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Adding-Docvalues-to-a-Field-td4333503.html but you can see what kinds of deep-level Lucene knowled

Re: Facet is not working while querying with group

I tried to recreate the collection and its working fine, But if i try to change the any field level value this error again comes Is their any roadmap to avoid the remanent data issue, since every time you change the field definition you need to delete the data directory or recreate the collection.

Re: Facet is not working while querying with group

bq: But I only changed the docvalues not the multivalued It's the same issue. There is remnant metadata when you change whether a field uses docValues or not. The error message can be ambiguous depending on where the issue is encountered. Best, Erick On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Aman Deep Si

Re: Facet is not working while querying with group

But I only changed the docvalues not the multivalued , Anyway I will try to reproduce this by deleting the entire data directory On 16-Jun-2017 9:52 PM, "Erick Erickson" wrote: > bq: deleted entire index from the solr by delete by query command > > That's not what I meant. Either > a> create an

Re: Facet is not working while querying with group

bq: deleted entire index from the solr by delete by query command That's not what I meant. Either a> create an entirely new collection starting with the modified schema or b> shut down all your Solr instances. Go into each replica/core and 'rm -rf data'. Restart Solr. That way you're absolutely s

Re: Facet is not working while querying with group

Yes ,it was a new schema(new collection),and after that I change only docvalues= true using schema api,but before changing the schema I have deleted entire index from the solr by delete by query command using admin gui. On 16-Jun-2017 9:28 PM, "Erick Erickson" wrote: My guess is you changed the

Re: Facet is not working while querying with group

My guess is you changed the definition of the field from multiValued="true" to "false" at some point. Even if you re-index all docs, some of the metadata can still be present. Did yo completely blow away the data? By that I mean remove the entire data dir (i.e. the parent of the "index" directory)

Aw: Re: Re: Facet ranges and stats

sheel Kumar" > An: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Betreff: Re: Re: Facet ranges and stats > > Great, it worked out. If you want to share where and in what code you have > 90 configured, we can brainstorm if we can simplify it to have only one > place. > > On Thu, J

Re: Re: Facet ranges and stats

ny are complete and how many not. > > A drawback is surely that the "complete" limit of 90 is now implemented in > two places (DIH script and my code). > But so far i can life with it. > > Thank you > Per > > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 31. Mai 2017 um 17:28 Uhr >

Aw: Re: Facet ranges and stats

are complete and how many not. A drawback is surely that the "complete" limit of 90 is now implemented in two places (DIH script and my code). But so far i can life with it. Thank you Per > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 31. Mai 2017 um 17:28 Uhr > Von: "Susheel Kumar" > An: sol

Re: Facet ranges and stats

Hi, You may want to explore the JSON facets. The closest I can go to meet above requirement is below query (replace inStock with your rank field and price below with total. Null handling something also will have to look. -- Susheel curl http://localhost:8983/solr/techproducts/query -d 'q=*:*&

Re: Facet? Search problem

--- > From: Dave [mailto:hastings.recurs...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 7:59 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: Facet? Search problem > > Perhaps look into grouping on that field. > > > On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:08 PM, Scott Smith > wrote: &g

RE: Facet? Search problem

Thanks. I'll look at that as well. -Original Message- From: Stefan Matheis [mailto:matheis.ste...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 1:20 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: Facet? Search problem Scott Depending on what you're looking for https://cwiki.

RE: Facet? Search problem

much. > > -Original Message- > From: Dave [mailto:hastings.recurs...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 7:59 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: Facet? Search problem > > Perhaps look into grouping on that field. > > > On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:08 PM, S

RE: Facet? Search problem

at search. Perfect. Thank you very much. -Original Message- From: Dave [mailto:hastings.recurs...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 7:59 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Facet? Search problem Perhaps look into grouping on that field. > On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:08

Re: Facet? Search problem

https://wiki.apache.org/solr/FieldCollapsing > On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:59 PM, Dave wrote: > > Perhaps look into grouping on that field. > >> On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:08 PM, Scott Smith wrote: >> >> I'm trying to solve a search problem and wondering if facets (or something >> else) might solve th

Re: Facet? Search problem

Perhaps look into grouping on that field. > On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:08 PM, Scott Smith wrote: > > I'm trying to solve a search problem and wondering if facets (or something > else) might solve the problem. > > Let's assume I have a bunch of documents (100 million+). Each document has a > cate

Re: Facet query - exlude main query

Oh right right ! Sorry late night :) Thank You Chris On 21 February 2017 at 20:30, Chris Hostetter wrote: > > : Maybe I'm doing something wrong ? > : /select?q.op=OR&mm=2&q={!tag=mq}nissan&qf=name%20name_ > raw&wt=json&start=0&rows=20&facet.field={!ex=tag_mq}feature_s_1_make > > that url st

Re: Facet query - exlude main query

: Maybe I'm doing something wrong ? : /select?q.op=OR&mm=2&q={!tag=mq}nissan&qf=name%20name_raw&wt=json&start=0&rows=20&facet.field={!ex=tag_mq}feature_s_1_make that url still contains "ex=tag_mq" .. which is looking for a query with a tag named "tag_mq" .. in your q param you are using a t

Re: Facet query - exlude main query

Maybe I'm doing something wrong ? /select?q.op=OR&mm=2&q={!tag=mq}nissan&qf=name%20name_raw&wt=json&start=0&rows=20&facet.field={!ex=tag_mq}feature_s_1_make Still only getting ONE facet value ? { status: 0, QTime: 5, params: { mm: "2", facet.field: [ "{!ex=tag_mq}feature_s_1_make", "{!ex=tag

Re: Facet query - exlude main query

: facet.field: [ : "{!ex=tag_make,tag_model,tag_mq}feature_s_1_make", : "{!ex=tag_model}feature_s_2_model" ... : q: "{!tag=mq}nissan", You are attempting to exclude tags named "tag_make", "tag_model", and "tag_mq" -- but the name of the tag you are using in the query is "mq" if you incl

Re: Facet query - exlude main query

Sure.. So this is for a car search-application If i change: q={!tag=mq}nissan to q=*:* I get all the makes. VAR ECHO: responseHeader: { status: 0, QTime: 4, params: { mm: "2", facet.field: [ "{!ex=tag_make,tag_model,tag_mq}feature_s_1_make", "{!ex=tag_model}feature_s_2_model" ], qs: "5",

Re: Facet query - exlude main query

: Solr3.1 Starting with Solr 3.1, the : primary relevance query (i.e. the one normally specified by the *q* parameter) : may also be excluded. : : But doesnt show me how to exlude it ?? same tag + ex local params, as you had in your example... : 2. q=

Re: Facet date Range without start and and date

No it's not. Use something like facet.date.start=-00-00T00:00:00Z and facet.date.end=3000-00-00T00:00:00Z. k/r, Scott On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:46 AM, nabil Kouici wrote: > Hi All, > Is it possible to have facet date range without specifying start and and > of the range. > Otherwise, is it

Re: Facet date - autogap

What about requesting all of them in a single request and decide on the client side of things which one to actually use? -Stefan On January 5, 2017 at 8:13:18 PM, sn0...@ulysses-erp.com (sn0...@ulysses-erp.com) wrote: > Is it possible to make an "autogap" for a daterange? > > I would like to

Re: Facet Null Pointer Exception with upgraded indexes

Try docValues="false" in your v6 schema.xml. You will may need to upgrade again. On 31 December 2016 at 07:59, Mikhail Khludnev wrote: > Hi Andreu, > > I think it can't facet text field anymore per se > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8362. > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Andreu

Re: Facet Null Pointer Exception with upgraded indexes

Hi Andreu, I think it can't facet text field anymore per se https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8362. On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Andreu Marimon wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to update from solr 4.3 to 6.3. We are doing a two step > migration and, during the first step, we upgraded th

Re: facet query performance

On Mon, 2016-11-14 at 11:36 +0530, Midas A wrote: > How to improve facet query performance 1) Don't shard unless you really need to. Replicas are fine. 2) If the problem is the first facet call, then enable DocValues and re-index. 3) Keep facet.limit <= 100, especially if you shard. and most im

Re: facet on dynamic field

You'll have to enumerate them (see the Luke request handler) and specify them explicitly. > On Nov 4, 2016, at 03:40, Midas A wrote: > > i want to create facet on all dynamic field (by_*) . what should be the > query ?

Re: Facet behavior

Hi Guys, Could any of you tell me if I'm right? Thanks in advance. kr, Bast Forwarded Message Subject: Re: Facet behavior Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 14:45:23 +0200 From: Bastien Latard | MDPI AG To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Hi Yonik, Thanks for

Re: Facet behavior

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Bastien Latard | MDPI AG wrote: > Hi Yonik, > > Thanks for your answer! > I'm not quite I understood everything...please, see my comments below. > > >> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 6:23 AM, Bastien Latard | MDPI AG >> wrote: >>> >>> I just had a question about facets.

Re: Facet behavior

Hi Yonik, Thanks for your answer! I'm not quite I understood everything...please, see my comments below. On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 6:23 AM, Bastien Latard | MDPI AG wrote: I just had a question about facets. *==> Is the facet run on all documents (to pre-process/cache the data) or only on retu

Re: Facet behavior

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 6:23 AM, Bastien Latard | MDPI AG wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I just had a question about facets. > *==> Is the facet run on all documents (to pre-process/cache the data) or > only on returned documents?* Yes ;-) There are sometimes per-field data structures that are cache

Re: Facet+Stats+MinCount: How to use mincount filter when use facet+stats

Sorry for that, Yonik Seeley. I have closed it and link it to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9603 -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Facet-Stats-MinCount-How-to-use-mincount-filter-when-use-facet-s

Re: Facet+Stats+MinCount: How to use mincount filter when use facet+stats

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Jeffery Yuan wrote: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9602 It looks like you beat me by seconds ;-) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9603 -Yonik

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >