Erik, Thanks, its working great. Next is to make it distributed. I was thinking of working on this, is the FacetCompoent a good model to work from to make the TreeFacet distributed? I should probably join solr-dev for that conversation I assume :-).
-jeremy On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:12:45PM -0700, Erik Hatcher wrote: > Jeremy, > > Great troubleshooting! You were spot on. > > I've posted a new patch that fixes the issue. > > Erik > > > On Oct 16, 2008, at 9:53 PM, Jeremy Hinegardner wrote: > >> After a bit more investigating, it appears that any facet tree where the >> first >> item is numerical or boolean or some non-textual type does not produce any >> secondary facets. This includes sint, sfloat, boolean and such. >> >> For instance, on the sample index: >> >> facet.tree=sku,cat => works >> facet.tree=cat,sku => works >> facet.tree=manu_exact,cat => works >> facet.tree=cat,manu_exact => works >> facet.tree=popularity,inStock => fails >> facet.tree=inStock,popularity => fails >> facet.tree=manu_exact,weight => works >> facet.tree=weight,manu_exact => fails >> >> I'm not very familiar with the Solr / Lucene Java API, so this is slow >> going >> here. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, but is the TermQuery for the >> secondary SimpleFacet messing up some how? I tried to dig into the code, >> but >> was unsuccessful. >> >> It appears to me that the searcher never returns a docSet for any >> TermQuery >> where the field being searched has a type that is non-textual. >> >> As a final test, I changed the schema and made the inStock field a 'text' >> field >> instead of 'boolean'. When I did that, and reindexed the sample data then >> the >> tree facet would work correctly as either facet.tree=cat,inStock or >> facet.tree=inStock,cat. Whereas before it would only work in the former. >> >> enjoy, >> >> -jeremy >> >> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:55:49AM -0600, Jeremy Hinegardner wrote: >>> Erik, >>> >>> After some more experiments, I can get it to perform incorrectly using >>> the >>> sample solr data. >>> >>> The example query from SOLR-792 ticket: >>> >>> http://localhost:8983/solr/select?q=*:*&rows=0&facet=on&facet.field=cat&facet.tree=cat,inStock&wt=json&indent=on >>> >>> Make a few altertions to the query: >>> >>> 1) swap the tree order - all tree facets are 0 >>> >>> http://localhost:8983/solr/select?q=*:*&rows=0&facet=on&facet.field=cat&facet.tree=inStock,cat&wt=json&indent=on >>> >>> 2) swap tree order and change facet.field to be the primary( inStock ) >>> >>> http://localhost:8983/solr/select?q=*:*&rows=0&facet=on&facet.field=inStock&facet.tree=inStock,cat&wt=json&indent=on >>> >>> Also, can tree faceting work distributed? >>> >>> enjoy, >>> >>> -jeremy >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 05:41:21PM -0700, Erik Hatcher wrote: >>>> Jeremy, >>>> >>>> What's the full request you're making to Solr? >>>> >>>> Do you get values when you facet normally on date_id and type? >>>> &facet.field=date_id&facet.field=type >>>> >>>> Erik >>>> >>>> p.s. this e-mail is not on the list (on a hotel net connection blocking >>>> outgoing mail) - feel free to reply to this back on the list though. >>>> >>>> On Oct 15, 2008, at 5:29 PM, Jeremy Hinegardner wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I'm testing out using the Tree Faceting Component (SOLR-792) on top of >>>>> Solr 1.3. >>>>> >>>>> It looks like it would do exactly what I want, but something is not >>>>> working >>>>> correctly with my schema. When I use the example schema, it works just >>>>> fine, >>>>> but I swap out the example schema's and example index and then put in >>>>> my >>>>> index >>>>> and and schema, tree facet does not work. >>>>> >>>>> Both of the fields I want to facet can be faceted individually, but >>>>> when I >>>>> say >>>>> facet.tree=date_id,type then all of the values are 0. >>>>> >>>>> Does anyone have any ideas on where I should start looking ? >>>>> >>>>> enjoy, >>>>> >>>>> -jeremy >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ======================================================================== >>>>> Jeremy Hinegardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> ======================================================================== >>> Jeremy Hinegardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >> >> -- >> ======================================================================== >> Jeremy Hinegardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- ======================================================================== Jeremy Hinegardner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
