Hmmm, I just tried this with 4.10.2 and can't reproduce this at all. If I define facets in the /select handler then specify any facet.field on the URL, the URL completely overrides the defaults in /select. I even tried specifying the facet.field twice and still only a single section was returned in the response.
So more details, please. Are you running in cloud mode for instance? If not, a bigger snippet of your solrconfig would help (or the whole thing). And anything from your Solr log that looks interesting, including the exact query received by Solr (from the log)... Best, Erick On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Burke, Brian <bbu...@techtarget.com> wrote: > We’ve run into an issue during local testing of the 4.10.2 release, where if > the search handler config in solrconfig.xml has facet.fields defined, and a > different field is on the request, then the requested facets are included > twice in the response. If the list of default facet fields is removed from > the handler config, no dupes are returned. > > Is this configuration in solrconfig.xml not supported, or incorrect in some > way? > > Here’s an excerpt from the solrconfig.xml (for the default search handler): > > …. > <str name='facet'>true</str> > <str name='facet.field'>typedef</str> > <str name='f.typedef.facet.limit'>15</str> > <str name='facet.field'>subtype</str> > <str name='f.subtype.facet.limit'>15</str> > <str name='facet.mincount'>1</str> > … > > And when requesting facets on another field with this request: > > > Produces this result, with the facets listed twice: > http://ctestserver/solr/core12/select?q=*:*&rows=0&wt=json&indent=true&facet=true&facet.field=primaryId&facet.limit=10 > > > { > "responseHeader":{ > "status":0, > "QTime":19, > "params":{ > "facet":"true", > "indent":"true", > "q":"*:*", > "facet.limit":"10", > "facet.field":"primaryId", > "wt":"json", > "rows":"0"}}, > "response":{"numFound":3365954,"start":0,"docs":[] > }, > "facet_counts":{ > "facet_queries":{}, > "facet_fields":{ > "primaryId":[ > "c7e512f03d300310VgnVCM1000000d01c80aRCRD",81047, > "2f4e68c8f24f3310VgnVCM1000000d01c80aRCRD",34239, > "cfe3d14b917e1210VgnVCM1000000d01c80aRCRD",16719, > "0c88cd4fb27e1210VgnVCM1000000d01c80aRCRD",14179, > "c4e39262b57e1210VgnVCM1000000d01c80aRCRD",10983, > "98a13bc7f1c96310VgnVCM1000000d01c80aRCRD",10504, > "69cb2c4c9c6e1210VgnVCM1000000d01c80aRCRD",10232, > "435dd953c2772210VgnVCM1000000d01c80aRCRD",9250, > "23a89ce3f561f110VgnVCM1000009d2916acRCRD",9024, > "f4e6fc42247e1210VgnVCM1000000d01c80aRCRD",8022], > "primaryId":[ > "c7e512f03d300310VgnVCM1000000d01c80aRCRD",81047, > "2f4e68c8f24f3310VgnVCM1000000d01c80aRCRD",34239, > "cfe3d14b917e1210VgnVCM1000000d01c80aRCRD",16719, > "0c88cd4fb27e1210VgnVCM1000000d01c80aRCRD",14179, > "c4e39262b57e1210VgnVCM1000000d01c80aRCRD",10983, > "98a13bc7f1c96310VgnVCM1000000d01c80aRCRD",10504, > "69cb2c4c9c6e1210VgnVCM1000000d01c80aRCRD",10232, > "435dd953c2772210VgnVCM1000000d01c80aRCRD",9250, > "23a89ce3f561f110VgnVCM1000009d2916acRCRD",9024, > "f4e6fc42247e1210VgnVCM1000000d01c80aRCRD",8022]}, > "facet_dates":{}, > "facet_ranges":{}, > "facet_intervals":{}}} > > > Any suggestions on how to eliminate these duplicates would be most > appreciated. > Thanks, > Brian > > >
