This is confusing because when you write {!terms}, it suggests a reference
to the TermsQParser, but when you write {!terms=a,b,c} it suggests
local-params, with key "terms" and value "a,b,c" -- entirely different
things. I think that "terms" local-param to faceting was a purely internal
thing that wasn't documented; it existed as an internal implementation
detail. Then someone (I think Christine, if not then Mikhail) observed it
wasn't documented, and added some basic docs. Now you come along and try
to use it with other things that unsurprisingly it just wasn't designed
for. That's my estimation of the matter... and *if* true, illustrates that
maybe some internal params should stay internal and don't need to be
publicly documented. I confess I've used that faceting local-param in an
app once before too; it's useful. I know my response isn't a direct answer
to your question RE mincount... perhaps it can be made to work?
~ David Smiley
Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 8:21 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowsk...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I was using the {!terms} local parameter on some traditional field
> facets to make sure particular values were returned.
>
> e.g.
> facet=true&facet.field={!terms='fantasy,scifi,mystery'}genre_s&f.genre_s.facet.mincount=2
>
> On single-shard collections in 8.6.3 this worked as I expected -
> "fantasy", "scifi", and "mystery" were the only 3 field values
> returned, and "mystery" was returned despite its count value being
> less than the specified "mincount". But on a multi-shard collection
> "mystery" isn't returned (presumably because a "mincount" check
> filters out the values on the facet aggregator node).
>
> What are the expected semantics when "{!terms}" and "mincount" are
> used together? Should mincount filter out values in {!terms}, or
> should those values be excluded from any mincount filtering? The
> behavior is clearly inconsistent between single and multi-shard, so it
> deserves a JIRA either way. Just trying to figure out what the
> expected behavior is.
>
> Best,
>
> Jason
>
