On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Siddharth Modala
<modalasiddha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Yonik,
>
> That fixed the issue. Will this experimental flag be removed from future
> versions?
I don't think so... it's needed functionality, I just don't
particularly like where I had to put it (in the "facet" block instead
of in the block w/ other facet params like offset, limit, etc).
While it's nice that we start off with an implicit facet bucket, that
leaves us w/o a place to specify parameters for the root facet.
-Yonik
> Is there any other webpage apart from your blog(which is btw really
> awesome) where I can find more info on the new facet module(like info reg
> the processEmpty flag e.t.c)?
> On May 5, 2016 2:37 PM, "Yonik Seeley" <ysee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Siddharth Modala
>> <modalasiddha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > We are facing the following issue where Json Facet with excludeTag
>> doesn't
>> > return any results when numFound=0, even though excluding the filter
>> will
>> > result in matching few docs. (Note: excludeTag works when numFound is >
>> 0)
>>
>> Yeah, we perhaps need to be smarter at knowing when a 0 result could
>> still yield useful sub-facets.
>> For now, there is an experimental flag you can add to the facet block:
>> processEmpty:true
>>
>> So in your case:
>> json.facet={
>> processEmpty:true,
>> exCounts:{type:terms, field:group_id_s,limit=-1,
>> domain:{excludeTags:AMOUNT} },
>> }
>>
>> -Yonik
>>
