Well thanks for asking the question because I had no idea what Andrew posted was even possible... and I most definitely will be using that myself! Totally brilliant stuff. I am so loving Solr... well, when it's not driving me bonkers.
Mary Jo On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Jamal, Sarfaraz < sarfaraz.ja...@verizonwireless.com.invalid> wrote: > Thank you Andrew, that looks like exactly what I am looking for =) > Thank you Robert, it looks like we are both doing it in similar fashion =) > Thank you MaryJo for jumping right in! > > Sas > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Chillrud [mailto:achill...@opentext.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 2:17 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: RE: [E] Re: Faceting Question(s) > > It is possible to get the original facet counts for the field you are > filtering on (we have been using this since Solr 3.6). Don't know if this > can be extended to get the original counts for all fields however. > > This syntax is described here: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Faceting > > Tagging and Excluding Filters > > You can tag specific filters and exclude those filters when faceting. This > is useful when doing multi-select faceting. > > Consider the following example query with faceting: > > q=mainquery&fq=status:public&fq=doctype:pdf&facet=true&facet.field=doctype > > Because everything is already constrained by the filter doctype:pdf, the > facet.field=doctype facet command is currently redundant and will return 0 > counts for everything except doctype:pdf. > > To implement a multi-select facet for doctype, a GUI may want to still > display the other doctype values and their associated counts, as if the > doctype:pdf constraint had not yet been applied. For example: > === Document Type === > [ ] Word (42) > [x] PDF (96) > [ ] Excel(11) > [ ] HTML (63) > > To return counts for doctype values that are currently not selected, tag > filters that directly constrain doctype, and exclude those filters when > faceting on doctype. > > > q=mainquery&fq=status:public&fq={!tag=dt}doctype:pdf&facet=true&facet.field={!ex=dt}doctype > > Filter exclusion is supported for all types of facets. Both the tag and ex > local parameters may specify multiple values by separating them with commas. > > - Andy - > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Brown [mailto:r...@intelcompute.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 2:12 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: [E] Re: Faceting Question(s) > > MaryJo, I think you've mis-understood. The counts are different simply > because the 2nd query contains an filter of a facet value from the 1st > query - that's completely expected. > > The issue is how to get the original facet counts (with no filters but > same q) in the same call as also filtering by one of those facet values. > > Personally I don't think it's possible, but will be interested to hear > others input, since it's a very common situation for me - I cache the first > result in memcached and tag future queries as related to the first. > > Or could you always make 2 calls back to Solr (one original (again), and > one with the filters), the caches should help massively. > > > > On 02/06/16 19:07, MaryJo Sminkey wrote: > > And you're saying the count for the second query is different than > > what was returned in the facet? You may need to check for any defaults > > you have set up in the solrconfig for the select parser, if for > > instance you have any grouping going on, but aren't doing grouping in > > your facet, that could result in the counts being off. > > > > MJ > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Jamal, Sarfaraz < > > sarfaraz.ja...@verizonwireless.com.invalid> wrote: > > > >> Absolutely, > >> > >> Here is what it looks like: > >> > >> This brings the right counts as it should http:// > >> **********select?q=video&hl=true&hl.fl=*&hl.snippets=20&facet=true&fa > >> cet.field=team > >> > >> Then when I specify which team > >> http:// > >> **********select?q=video&hl=true&hl.fl=*&hl.snippets=20&facet=true&fa > >> cet.field=team&fq=team:rollback > >> > >> The counts are obviously different now, as the result set is limited > >> to one team. > >> > >> Sas > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: MaryJo Sminkey [mailto:mjsmin...@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 1:56 PM > >> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > >> Subject: [E] Re: Faceting Question(s) > >> > >> Jamai - what is your q= set to? And do you have a fq for the original > >> query? I have found that if you do a wildcard search (*.*) you have > >> to be careful about other parameters you set as that can often result > >> in the numbers returned being off. In my case, my defaults had things > >> like edismax settings for phrase boosting, etc. that don't apply if > >> there isn't a search term, and once I removed those for a wildcard > >> search I got the correct numbers. So possibly your facet query itself > >> may be set up correctly but something else in the parameters and/or > >> filters with the two queries may be the cause of the difference. > >> > >> Mary Jo > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Jamal, Sarfaraz < > >> sarfaraz.ja...@verizonwireless.com.invalid> wrote: > >> > >>> Hello Everyone, > >>> > >>> I am working on implementing some basic faceting into my project. > >>> > >>> I have it working the way I want to, but I feel like there is > >>> probably a better way the way I went about it. > >>> > >>> * I want to show a category and its count. > >>> * when someone clicks a category, it sets a FQ= to that category. > >>> > >>> But now that the results are being filtered, the category counts > >>> from the original query without the filters are off. > >>> > >>> So, I have a single api call that I make with rows set to 0 and the > >>> base query without any filters, and use that to display my categories. > >>> > >>> And then I call the api again, this time to get the results. And the > >>> category count is the same. > >>> > >>> I hope that makes sense. > >>> > >>> I was hoping facet.query would be of help, but I am not sure I > >>> understood it properly. > >>> > >>> Thanks in advance =) > >>> > >>> Sas > >>> > >
