I made one more attempt. It seems it works. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8998?focusedCommentId=15487095&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15487095
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Tobias Lorenz <lor...@shoptimax.de> wrote: > I tried that too, with no effect. > > The excluded facet just disappears completely (even the value that is > filtered on in the fq) when using the exclusion that has been tagged, like > it did before. > When using a random exclusion (e.g. foo) that facet is visible again in > the result set, but that's obviously not helpful, I just tried to see what > it would do. > > So this is my current research result: > > When excluding a facet which has been tagged in a filter query, this facet > corresponding to the fq's tag disappears in the result set in solr 6.1 when > using BlockJoin Queries and json facets (which it shouldn't). > > Let me know if you want me to do more research or have one more idea. > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Mikhail Khludnev [mailto:m...@apache.org] > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. August 2016 09:06 > An: solr-user <solr-user@lucene.apache.org> > Betreff: Re: Re: Tagging and excluding Filters with BlockJoin Queries and > BlockJoin Faceting > > Sure. There are might mismatch with expectation. However, the first guess > is to put {!tag into beginning. eg, check with fq={!tag=myTag}{!parent > which='isparent:true'}color:blue > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Tobias Lorenz <lor...@shoptimax.de> > wrote: > > > Hi Mikhail, > > > > Thanks for replying so quickly with a suggestion. > > > > I'm a colleague of Stefan and working with him on our project. > > > > We tried composing our solr query with exclusion instructions, and the > > result was that the facet excluded by tag did not show up anymore in > > the result, instead of showing all values. > > > > Your example from the last comment, completed by our exlusion > instruction: > > > > json.facet={ > > filter_by_children: { > > type: query, > > q: "isparent:false", > > domain: { > > blockChildren: "isparent:true" > > }, > > facet: { > > colors: { > > type: terms, > > field: color, > > domain:{ > > excludeTags:myTag > > }, > > facet: { > > productsCount: "unique(_root_)" > > } > > } > > } > > } > > } > > > > > > and the corresponding filter query: > > > > fq={!parent which='isparent:true'}{!tag=myTag}color:blue > > > > > > Either this feature is not working yet, or we are making a mistake > > using it. > > Of course we know it's still in development right now. > > > > Might you please have a look if we are doing something obviously wrong? > > > > Thanks, > > Tobias > > > > > > > > >The last comment at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8998 > > >shows the current verbose json.facet syntax which provides aggregated > > >facet counts already. It's a little bit slower that child.facet.field. > > >Nevertheless, you can take this sample and add exclusion instructions > > into. > > >It should work. Let me know how does it, please. > > > > > >On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Stefan Moises <moi...@shoptimax.de> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Mikhail, > > >> > > >> thanks for the info ... what is the advantage of using the JSON > > >> FACET > > API > > >> compared to the standard BlockJoinQuery features? > > >> > > >> Is there already anybody working on the tagging/exclusion feature > > >> or is there any timeframe for it? There wasn't any discussion yet > > >> in SOLR-8998 about exclusions, was there? > > >> > > >> Thank you very much, > > >> > > >> best, > > >> > > >> Stefan > > >> > > >> > > >> Am 17.08.16 um 15:26 schrieb Mikhail Khludnev: > > >> > > >> Stefan, > > >>> child.facet.field never intend to support exclusions. My > > >>> preference is > > to > > >>> implement it under json.facet that's discussed under > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8998. > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Stefan Moises > > >>> <moi...@shoptimax.de> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hey girls and guys, > > >>>> > > >>>> for a long time we have been using our own BlockJoin > > >>>> Implementation, because for our Shop Systems a lot of > > >>>> requirements that we had were > > not > > >>>> implemented in solr. > > >>>> > > >>>> As we now had a deeper look into how far the standard has come, > > >>>> we saw that BlockJoin and faceting on children is now part of the > > >>>> standard, which is pretty cool. > > >>>> When I tried to refactor our external code to use that now, I > > >>>> stumbled upon one non-working feature with BlockJoins that still > > >>>> keeps us from using > > >>>> it: > > >>>> > > >>>> It seems that tagging and excluding Filters with BlockJoin > > >>>> Faceting simply does not work yet. > > >>>> > > >>>> Simple query: > > >>>> > > >>>> &qt=products > > >>>> &q={!parent which='isparent:true'}shirt AND isparent:false > > >>>> &facet=true &fq={!parent > > >>>> which='isparent:true'}{!tag=myTag}color:grey > > >>>> &child.facet.field={!ex=myTag}color > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Gives us: > > >>>> o.a.s.h.RequestHandlerBase org.apache.solr.common.SolrException: > > >>>> undefined field: "{!ex=myTag}color" > > >>>> at org.apache.solr.schema.IndexSchema.getField( > IndexSchema. > > >>>> java:1231) > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Does somebody have an idea? > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Best, > > >>>> Stefan > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> -- > > >>>> ************************************ > > >>>> Stefan Moises > > >>>> Manager Research & Development > > >>>> shoptimax GmbH > > >>>> Ulmenstraße 52 H > > >>>> 90443 Nürnberg > > >>>> Tel.: 0911/25566-0 > > >>>> Fax: 0911/25566-29 > > >>>> moi...@shoptimax.de > > >>>> http://www.shoptimax.de > > >>>> > > >>>> Geschäftsführung: Friedrich Schreieck > > >>>> Ust.-IdNr.: DE 814340642 > > >>>> Amtsgericht Nürnberg HRB 21703 > > >>>> ************************************ > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> -- > > >> -- > > >> ************************************ > > >> Stefan Moises > > >> Manager Research & Development > > >> shoptimax GmbH > > >> Ulmenstraße 52 H > > >> 90443 Nürnberg > > >> Tel.: 0911/25566-0 > > >> Fax: 0911/25566-29 > > >> moi...@shoptimax.de > > >> http://www.shoptimax.de > > >> > > >> Geschäftsführung: Friedrich Schreieck > > >> Ust.-IdNr.: DE 814340642 > > >> Amtsgericht Nürnberg HRB 21703 > > >> ************************************ > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >-- > > >Sincerely yours > > >Mikhail Khludnev > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Sincerely yours > Mikhail Khludnev > -- Sincerely yours Mikhail Khludnev
