We can always use more documentation. One of the valuable things about people getting started is that it's an opportunity to clarify documents. Sometimes the people who develop/write the docs jump into the middle and assume the reader has knowledge they couldn't be expected to have....
Hint, hint..... Best, Erick On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:09 PM, MaryJo Sminkey <mjsmin...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>
