Yeah even though I'm still fairly new to this, I'm generally a good problem solver or I'd never have gotten as far as I have already on my own (really wanted to hire a Solr consultant and pushed VERY hard for it, but my boss really likes us to figure things out on our own!) Just wish I'd found this list long before now, I have a feeling it would have saved me some very long nights and weekends trying to work out some of the more baffling issues. That's why I jumped in and why I misinterpreted the question... because the way I read it was the thing that literally drove me crazy for two days straight trying to figure out. ;-) But I'm very excited to find out the real question and answer as that is something that definitely applies to us as well and will certainly speed up our searches to drop the extra server call.
MJ On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:59 AM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: > One of the most valuable things I did when I started out > (way back in the Lucene-only days) was try to answer _one_ > question every so often. Even if someone else beat me to the > punch, I benefitted from the research. And the rest of the time > I discovered things I never knew about Solr/Lucene! > > I think one of the most valuable lessons was "Somebody's > probably run into this before, I wonder what _they_ did?" > ;) > > Best, > Erick > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 9:46 PM, MaryJo Sminkey <mjsmin...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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 > >> >>> > >> > >> >
