ml#child-childdoctransformerfactory
https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/8_5/transforming-result-documents.html#subquery
: Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 04:37:06 -0700 (MST)
: From: Venu
: Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
: To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
: Subject: Re: Solr facet order same as
Probably I haven't framed my question properly.
Consider the schema with the fields - id, sku, fc_id, group_id
The same SKU can be part of multiple documents with different fc_id and
group_id.
For a given search query, multiple documents having the same SKU will be
returned. Is there any way I ca
I have no idea what “getting the facets in the same order as the sort docs”
would mean.
Even in the single-valued case, say
idrankvalue_in_facet_field
doc1 1 32
doc2 2 76
doc3 33
doc4 4 76
How would facets be or
Hi
For a given query and sort order, Solr returns the results(ordered based on
score and sort order) set along with facets(ordered in descending order of
buckets counts)
Is there any way to get the facets also in the same order as results/docs? I
tried with json facet, but I am not able to make it
Hi Erick,
Thank you very much for your response! OK, I understand what you mean and
will flaten the list into multiple fields.
Thanks!
--
Sent from: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-User-f472068.html
and sort them.
Best,
Erick
> On Mar 26, 2019, at 6:37 PM, Wendy2 wrote:
>
> Hi Solr Users,
>
> Can Solr facet on a particular element in a list?
> For example, I have a list with 4 elements as below. Is it possible to
> facet on the individual element?
> facet o
Hi Solr Users,
Can Solr facet on a particular element in a list?
For example, I have a list with 4 elements as below. Is it possible to
facet on the individual element?
facet on rcsb_enzyme_lineage.name(0), rcsb_enzyme_lineage.name(1), etc??
Thanks!
"rcsb_enzyme_lineage.name&q
tion StackOverflow
<https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51231416/solr-facet-division-of-2-aggregation-function>
)
https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/6_6/faceting.html#Faceting-Thefacet.mincountParameter
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:41 PM, Srinivas Kashyap <
srini...@tradestonesoftware.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a Solr collection which has around 20 fields(indexed and stored).
> When I turn on facet and m
Hello,
I have a Solr collection which has around 20 fields(indexed and stored). When I
turn on facet and mention a facet.field, I'm able to get the facet count for
that field. However, I'm able to see some junk facet counts like below, being
generated in the facet response(1, 10, 100, 1000, 100
Ere:
This is an excellent summary, it conforms to what I think I know, it's
always nice to see confirmation!
I'd add two small enhancements. Your point 5 mentions sorting. The same
consideration is true for grouping and faceting as well. What all three
have in common is that they answer the quest
Hi Everyone,
This is a followup on the discussion from September 2017. Since then
I've spent a lot of time gathering a better understanding on docValues
compared to UIF and other stuff related to Solr performance. Here's a
summary of the results based on my real-world experience:
1. Making s
Toke Eskildsen kirjoitti 5.9.2017 klo 13.49:
On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 11:03 -0400, Yonik Seeley wrote:
It's due to this (see comments in UnInvertedField):
I have read that. What I don't understand is the difference between 4.x
and 6.x. But as you say, Ere seems to be in the process of verifying
w
Yonik Seeley kirjoitti 4.9.2017 klo 18.03:
It's due to this (see comments in UnInvertedField):
* To further save memory, the terms (the actual string values) are
not all stored in
* memory, but a TermIndex is used to convert term numbers to term values only
* for the terms needed after face
The number-of-segments noise probably swamps this... but one
optimization around deep-facet-paging that didn't get carried forward
is
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2092
-Yonik
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:49 AM, Toke Eskildsen wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 11:03 -0400, Yonik Seeley wr
On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 11:03 -0400, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> It's due to this (see comments in UnInvertedField):
I have read that. What I don't understand is the difference between 4.x
and 6.x. But as you say, Ere seems to be in the process of verifying
whether this is simply due to more segments in 6
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Toke Eskildsen wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 13:21 +0300, Ere Maijala wrote:
>> Thanks for the insight, Yonik. I can confirm that #2 is true. I ran
>>
>>
>>
>> and after it completed I was able to retrieve 2000 values in 17ms.
>
> Very interesting. Is this on spin
Toke Eskildsen kirjoitti 4.9.2017 klo 13.38:
On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 13:21 +0300, Ere Maijala wrote:
Thanks for the insight, Yonik. I can confirm that #2 is true. I ran
and after it completed I was able to retrieve 2000 values in 17ms.
Very interesting. Is this on spinning disks or SSD? Is yo
On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 13:21 +0300, Ere Maijala wrote:
> Thanks for the insight, Yonik. I can confirm that #2 is true. I ran
>
>
>
> and after it completed I was able to retrieve 2000 values in 17ms.
Very interesting. Is this on spinning disks or SSD? Is your index data
cached in memory? What I
Yonik Seeley kirjoitti 1.9.2017 klo 17.03:> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:17
AM, Ere Maijala wrote:
>> I spoke a bit too soon. Now I see why I didn't see any improvement from
>> facet.method=uif before: its performance seems to depend heavily on
how many
>> facets are returned. With an index of 6 mi
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Ere Maijala wrote:
> I spoke a bit too soon. Now I see why I didn't see any improvement from
> facet.method=uif before: its performance seems to depend heavily on how many
> facets are returned. With an index of 6 million records and the facet having
> 1960 buckets:
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Ere Maijala wrote:
> I spoke a bit too soon. Now I see why I didn't see any improvement from
> facet.method=uif before: its performance seems to depend heavily on how many
> facets are returned. With an index of 6 million records and the facet having
> 1960 buckets:
I spoke a bit too soon. Now I see why I didn't see any improvement from
facet.method=uif before: its performance seems to depend heavily on how
many facets are returned. With an index of 6 million records and the
facet having 1960 buckets:
facet.limit=20 takes 4ms
facet.limit=200 takes ~100ms
Yonik, thanks for the hint with the uif facet method.
(btw: why isn't it part of the official documentation? - at least I
haven't found it)
For our use case it means:
Time for facet processing is exactly the same as it is with version 4.
But this works only for indexes 'without' docvalues
I te
I can confirm that we're seeing the same issue as Günter. For a
collection of 57 million bibliographic records, Solr 4.10.2 (without
docValues) can consistently return a facet in about 20ms, while Solr
6.6.0 with docValues takes around 2600ms. I've tested some versions
between those two too, bu
A possible improvement for some multiValued fields might be to use the
"uif" facet method (UnInvertedField was the default method for
multiValued fields in 4.x)
I'm not sure if you would need to reindex without docValues on that
field to try it though.
Example: to enable on the "union" field, add
Hi,
in the meantime I came across the reason for the slow facet processing
capacities of SOLR since version 5.x
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8096
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5666
compared to version 4.x
Various library networks across the world are suffering f
After a bit of investigation, I am verifying I get over the double of qTime
for a single solr query on a distributed evnironment.
I will go into the details, but before I go into the code, is the unique
functionality going to be helped if we store docValues for the unique field
?
I have a cardinal
Hi gents,
was taking a look to the ways to calculate distinct count per facet.
Reading through Yonik blogs [1] it seems quite safe to assume the "
unique(field)" is the approach to go.
Do we have any benchmark or details about the implementation ?
Because as per Yonik blog it is faster than Hyper
Dear all,
Hi,
I am wondering, is there any way to introduce and add a function for facet
gap parameter? I already know there are some Date Math that can be used.
(Such as DAY, MONTH, and etc.) I want to add some functions and try to use
them as gap in facet range; Is it possible?
Sincerely,
Ali.
Hi Erick,
I believe I have found a solution and I am putting plenty of detail for
future reference. I have taken your previous advice and decided to add a
field (cancerTerms) and add in the terms there. But I am not doing this
outside of Solr. I am using the analysis chain and passing it through a
Sorry, I overlooked the ShingleFilterFactory.
You're getting that from, presumably, your
ShingleFilterFactory. Note that the minShingleSize=2
does not mean that only 2-shingles are output, there's
yet another parameter "outputUnigrams" that controls
that in combination with outputUnigramsIfNoShingl
Erick,
I am not sure when you say "the only available terms are "not" and
"necessarily"" is totally correct. I go into the schema browser and I can
see that there are two terms "not" and "not necessarily" with the correct
count. Unless these are not the terms you are talking about. Can you
explain
bq: so I cannot copy this field to a text field with a
keywordtokenizer or strfield
1> There is no restriction on whether a field is analyzed or not as far as
faceting is concerned. You can freely facet on an analyzed field
or String field or KeywordTokenized field. As Binoy says, though,
facetin
1) When faceting use field of type string. That'll rid you of your
tokenization problems.
Alternatively do not use any tokenizers.
Also turn doc values on for the field. It'll improve performance.
2) If however you do need to use a tokenized field for faceting, make sure
that they're pretty short i
I am not sure I am following correctly. The field I upload the document to
would be "content" the analyzed field is "ColonCancerField". The "content"
field contains the entire text of the document, in my case a pubmed
abstract. This is a tokenized field. I made this field untokenized and I
still re
Can you do the opposite? Index into an unanalyzed field and copy into the
analyzed?
If I remember correctly facets are based off of indexed values so if you
tokenize the field then the facets will be as you are seeing now.
On Dec 28, 2015 9:45 AM, "Kevin Lopez" wrote:
> *What I am trying to acc
*What I am trying to accomplish: *
Generate a facet based on the documents uploaded and a text file containing
terms from a domain/ontology such that a facet is shown if a term is in the
text file and in a document (key phrase extraction).
*The problem:*
When I select the facet for the term "*not
rid,restid,comment...]
>
> I am searching based on restaurant, how could i will find column of
> user&review
>
> Please give suggestion
>
> Thanks,
> Mugeesh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.c
ould i will find column of
user&review
Please give suggestion
Thanks,
Mugeesh
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-facet-query-critical-solr-query-response-tp4238135p4238180.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
] and so on.
>
> I want to facet in below way
>
> ta-[so=0,s1=2,s2=0]
> tb-[so=0,s1=1,s2=0]
> tc-[so=2,s1=0,s2=0]
> td-[so=0,s1=0,s2=0]
>
> how i create query which i can get such response ?
>
> Please suggestion
>
> Thanks,
> Mugeesh
>
>
quot;] ,vk:["s2"]
row5: vi:["ta"] ,vk:["s1"]
row5: vi:["tc"] ,vk:["s0"] and so on.
I want to facet in below way
ta-[so=0,s1=2,s2=0]
tb-[so=0,s1=1,s2=0]
tc-[so=2,s1=0,s2=0]
td-[so=0,s1=0,s2=0]
how i create query which i can get such response ?
Plea
ded
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-facet-search-improvements-tp4182502.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
On 1/28/2015 3:56 AM, thakkar.aayush wrote:
> I have around 1 million job titles which are indexed on Solr and am looking
> to improve the faceted search results on job title matches.
>
> For example: a job search for *Research Scientist Computer Architecture* is
> made, and the facet field title
and too specific and
titles like *Quantum Computing theorist* would ideally also be excluded
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-facet-search-improvements-tp4182502.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
I'm looking
> forward to your reply.
>
> Best Regards,
> Alice Yang
> +86-021-51530666*41493
> Floor 19,KaiKai Plaza,888,Wanhandu Rd,Shanghai(200042)
>
>
> -邮件原件-
> 发件人: Toke Eskildsen [mailto:t...@statsbiblioteket.dk]
> 发送时间: 2014年5月24日 15:17
> 收件人:
s,
Alice Yang
+86-021-51530666*41493
Floor 19,KaiKai Plaza,888,Wanhandu Rd,Shanghai(200042)
-邮件原件-
发件人: Toke Eskildsen [mailto:t...@statsbiblioteket.dk]
发送时间: 2014年5月24日 15:17
收件人: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
主题: RE: (Issue) How improve solr facet performance
Alice.H.Yang (mis.cnsh0
Alice.H.Yang (mis.cnsh04.Newegg) 41493 [alice.h.y...@newegg.com] wrote:
> 1. I'm sorry, I have made a mistake, the total number of documents is 32
> Million, not 320 Million.
> 2. The system memory is large for solr index, OS total has 256G, I set the
> solr tomcat HEAPSIZE="-Xms25G -Xmx100G"
ay 23, 2014 8:08 PM
To: d...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: (Issue) How improve solr facet performance
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 11:45 +0200, Alice.H.Yang (mis.cnsh04.Newegg)
41493 wrote:
> We are blocked by solr facet performance when query hits many
> documents. (about 10,000,000)
[320M document
Hoss created: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5383
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-facet-field-counts-not-correct-tp4097305p4097346.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
: if I do group=false&group.facet=false the counts are what they should be for
: the ungrouped counts... seems like group.facet isn't working correctly
yeah ... thanks for digging int -- definitely seems like a problem with
group.facet and Trie fields that use precisionStep.
I've opened a Jira:
if I do group=false&group.facet=false the counts are what they should be for
the ungrouped counts... seems like group.facet isn't working correctly
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-facet-field-counts-not-correct-tp4097305p4097314.html
Sent from
10
5
5
true
true
10
5
spellcheck
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-f
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-facet-field-counts-not-correct-tp4097305.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Make your two fq clauses separate fq params? Would be better for your
caches, and would mean the tag is easily associated with the whole fq
querystring.
Upayavira
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013, at 03:14 AM, 张智 wrote:
> solr 4.3
>
> this is my query request params:
>
> 0 name="QTime">15true name="indent"
solr 4.3
this is my query request params:
015truetrue*:*1373713374569{!ex=city}CityId{!ex=company}CompanyIdxml{!tag=city}CityId:729 AND
{!tag=company}CompanyId:16122
This is the query response "Facet" content:
100171894067747765780580922921328975...808776772765668667402401390971...
: Actual requirement is to get day wise total no. of counts for multiple
: terms.
the approach you described in your original mail (using multiple fqs to
identify your terms, and using multiple facet.range requests on the date
field with differnet exclusions) will work fine.
the confusing part
> 100
> 5
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/solr-facet-query-on-multiple-search-term-tp4068856p4069259.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
5
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/solr-facet-query-on-multiple-search-term-tp4068856p4069259.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
mp;facet.range={!key=movie+ex=music}dateField&
> fq={!tag=movie}content:"movie"&q=(col2:1+)&
>
> fq=+dateField:[2013-06-05T16:00:00Z+TO+2013-06-07T16:00:00Z]+AND+(+Col1:"test"+)&
> fl=col1,col2,col3
>
>
> I have tested for few search term ,
arch term.
Is this the proper way (with results and performance)?
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/solr-facet-query-on-multiple-search-term-tp4068856.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
: select?q=*:*&facet=true&facet.zeros=false&fq=column1:(16 31)&&fq=COLUMN2:(6
:
208)&fq={!tag=COLUMN2,column1}COLUMN2:(6)&facet.field={!ex=COLUMN2,column1}COLUMN2&start=0&rows=0
As erick said, you need to elaborate more on what you expect, what you
get, and how they are differnet.
taking a wil
2:(6)&facet.field={!ex=COLUMN2,column1}COLUMN2&start=0&rows=0
>
> this is not working
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/solr-facet-tag-on-multiple-columns-tp4011618p4011747.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 11:04 AM, lavesh wrote:
> I know this is possible in Solr which do the grouping irrespective of one
> values. i.e below line do the grouping based on column1 considering all
> filters except the column column1
>
> &facet.field={!ex=column1}column1
>
> now i wana know can i d
NP, glad it's working for you!
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 8:26 AM, davidbougearel
wrote:
> I have tried and it works !
>
> Thanks again a lot for this dude !
>
> Regards,
> David.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.
I have tried and it works !
Thanks again a lot for this dude !
Regards,
David.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-facet-multiple-constraint-tp3992974p3996189.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Ok it's nice a facet query, i will try this feature and will reply you but i
think that's the point, thanks a lot for time spent :)
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-facet-multiple-constraint-tp3992974p3996186.html
Sent from the Solr - User ma
gt; 0.81767845 = idf(docFreq=5, maxDocs=5)
> 1.0 = fieldNorm(field=publicationstatus, doc=0)
> },QParser=LuceneQParser,filter_queries=[(((pillar:10)))
>
> As you can see in this request i'm talking about pillar not about user.
>
> Thanks for all, David.
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-facet-multiple-constraint-tp3992974p3995215.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
eries=[(((pillar:10)))
As you can see in this request i'm talking about pillar not about user.
Thanks for all, David.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-facet-multiple-constraint-tp3992974p3995215.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
n i put fq=user:10,facet.field=user, the
> query returns me all the facets not taking into account the fq=user:10
> that's the problem.
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-facet-multiple-constraint-tp3992974p3994783.html
> Se
66.n3.nabble.com/Solr-facet-multiple-constraint-tp3992974p3994783.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
d
> of this we should make a lot of queries to get the right result.
>
> Best regards, David.
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-facet-multiple-constraint-tp3992974p3994574.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
of my application.
Have you any idea to solve this ?
Really thanks to help me, we are waiting a solution for this because instead
of this we should make a lot of queries to get the right result.
Best regards, David.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-
more clear ?
>
> Regards, David.
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-facet-multiple-constraint-tp3992974p3994109.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
ne
with user:10 even if those documents are tagged to service:1.
Is it more clear ?
Regards, David.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-facet-multiple-constraint-tp3992974p3994109.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
;s not working' it means that it's not the result
> expected : the result return me data tagged by all the facets not only the
> facet that i ask for with the constraint.
>
> Hope you will help me.
>
> Best regards,
>
> David.
>
> --
> View this messa
ge in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-facet-multiple-constraint-tp3992974p3993822.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Solr faceting only counts documents that satisfy the query. Think of it
as assembling a list of all possible values for a field and then adding
1 for each value found in each document that satisfies the overall
query (including the filter query). So you can get counts of 0, that's
expected. Adding
Hi all,
I have a question related to solr 3.5 on field facet. Here is my query:
http://localhost:8081/solr_new/select?tie=0.1&q.alt=*:*&q=bank&qf=nameaddress&fq=
*portal_uuid:+A4E7890F-A188-4663-89EB-176D94DF6774*&defType=dismax&*
facet=true*&facet.field=*location_uuid*&facet.field=*sub_category_
7Duser&facet=true&facet.mincount=1
>
> which is the same as my first post without the 'wt=javabin' and & instead of
> commas.
>
> Could you please see if there is something wrong for you ?
>
> Best regards,
>
> David.
>
> --
> View this messag
ld=%7B%21tag%3Ddt%7Duser&facet=true&facet.mincount=1
which is the same as my first post without the 'wt=javabin' and & instead of
commas.
Could you please see if there is something wrong for you ?
Best regards,
David.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.4
t; we are a team waiting for a fix.
> We try several ways to implement it without success.
>
> Thanks for reading anyway, David.
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-facet-multiple-constraint-tp3992974p3993119.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Please someone can help me,
we are a team waiting for a fix.
We try several ways to implement it without success.
Thanks for reading anyway, David.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-facet-multiple-constraint-tp3992974p3993119.html
Sent from the Solr
ld={!ex=dt}user,wt=javabin,fq={!tag=dt}user:10,version=2
Thanks in advance for answers, David.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-facet-multiple-constraint-tp3992974.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
: I would like to use solr facets with multi-word queries, is it possible
: I mainly implement a suggest application and use facet.prefix parameter,
: it works fine with single word but not with multiple words
it depends on your definition of "works" ? .. do you want each word to be
a seperate
85 matches
Mail list logo
