Michael, sorry for the confusion; I was positing a *hypothetical*
"exists()" function that doesn't currently exist, that *is* an
aggregate function, and the *does* stop early. I didn't account for
the fact that there's already an "exists()" function *query* that
behaves very differently. So yes, definitely confusing :-). I guess
choosing a different name for the proposed aggregate function would
make sense. I was suggesting it mostly as an alternative to extending
the syntax of JSON Facet "query" facet type, and to say that I think
the implementation of such an aggregate function would be pretty
straightforward.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 3:44 AM michael dürr <due...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> @Erick
>
> Sorry! I chose a simple example as I wanted to reduce complexity.
> In detail:
> * We have distinct contents like tours, offers, events, etc which
> themselves may be categorized: A tour may be a hiking tour, a
> mountaineering tour, ...
> * We have hundreds of customers that want to facet their searches to that
> content types but often with distinct combinations of categories, i.e.
> customer A wants his facet "tours" to only count hiking tours, customer B
> only mountaineering tours, customer C a combination of both, etc
> * We use "query" facets as each facet request will be build dynamically (it
> is not feasible to aggregate certain categories and add them as an
> additional solr schema field as we have hundreds of different combinations).
> * Anyways, our ui only requires adding a toggle to filter for (for example)
> "tours" in case a facet result is present. We do not care about the number
> of tours.
> * As we have millions of contents and dozens of content types (and dozens
> of categories per content type) such queries may take a very long time.
>
> A complex example may look like this:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *q=*:*&json.facet={ tour:{ type : query, q: \"+categoryId:(21450
> 21453)\" }, guide:{ type : query, q: \"+categoryId:(21105 21401
> 21301 21302 21303 21304 21305 21403 21404)\" }, story:{ type :
> query, q: \"+categoryId:21515\" }, condition:{ type : query,
> q: \"+categoryId:21514\" }, hut:{ type : query, q:
> \"+categoryId:8510\" }, skiresort:{ type : query, q:
> \"+categoryId:21493\" }, offer:{ type : query, q:
> \"+categoryId:21462\" }, lodging:{ type : query, q:
> \"+categoryId:6061\" }, event:{ type : query, q:
> \"+categoryId:21465\" }, poi:{ type : query, q:
> \"+(+categoryId:6000 -categoryId:(6061 21493 8510))\" }, authors:{
> type : query, q: \"+categoryId:(21205 21206)\" }, partners:{
> type : query, q: \"+categoryId:21200\" }, list:{ type :
> query, q: \"+categoryId:21481\" } }\&rows=0"*
>
> @Michael
>
> Thanks for your suggestion but this does not work as
> * the facet module expects an aggregate function (which i simply added by
> embracing your call with sum(...))
> * and (please correct me if I am wrong) the exists() function not stops on
> the first match, but counts the number of results for which the query
> matches a document.
