Great. Nice site and very similar to my requirements. > There's work on the patch that is being done now which will enable you to > ask for specific field values of the collapsed documents using a dedicated > request parameter.
So, right now, you get all field values by default? On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Uri Boness <ubon...@gmail.com> wrote: > You can check out http://www.ilocal.nl. If you search for a bank in > Amsterdam then you'll see that a lot of the results are collapsed. For this > we used an older version of this patch (which works on 1.3) but a lot has > changed since then. We're currently using this patch on another project, but > it's not live yet. > > > Uri > > R. Tan wrote: > >> Thanks Uri. Your personal suggestion is appreciated and I think I'll >> follow >> your advice. We're still early in development and 1.4 would be a good >> choice. I hope I can get field collapsing to work with my requirements. Do >> you know any live site using field collapsing already? >> >> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Uri Boness <ubon...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> There's work on the patch that is being done now which will enable you to >>> ask for specific field values of the collapsed documents using a >>> dedicated >>> request parameter. This work is not committed yet to the latest patch, >>> but >>> will be very soon. There is of course a drawback to that as well, the >>> collapsed documents set can be very large (depends on your data of >>> course) >>> in which case the returned result which includes the fields values can be >>> rather large, which will impact performance, this is why this feature >>> will >>> be enabled only if you specify this extra parameter - by default no field >>> values will be returned. >>> >>> AFAIK, the latest patch should work fine with the latest build. Martijn >>> (which is the main maintainer of this patch) tries to keep it up to date >>> with the latest builds. But I guess the safest way is to work with the >>> nightly build of the same date as the latest patch (though I would give >>> it a >>> try first with the latest build). >>> >>> BTW, it's not an official suggestion from the Solr development team, but >>> if >>> you ask me, if you have to choose now whether to use 1.3 or 1.4-dev, I >>> would >>> go for the later. 1.4 is supposed to be released in the upcoming week or >>> two >>> and it bring loads of bug fixes, enhancements and extra functionality. >>> But >>> again, this is my personal suggestion. >>> >>> >>> cheers, >>> Uri >>> >>> R. Tan wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Okay. Thanks for giving an insight on how it works in general. Without >>>> trying it myself, are the field values for the collapsed ones also part >>>> of >>>> the results data? >>>> What is the latest build that is safe to use on a production >>>> environment? >>>> I'd probably go for that and use field collapsing. >>>> >>>> Thank you very much. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Uri Boness <ubon...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> The collapsed documents are represented by one "master" document which >>>>> can >>>>> be part of the normal search result (the doc list), so pagination just >>>>> works >>>>> as expected, meaning taking only the returned documents in account >>>>> (ignoring >>>>> the collapsed ones). As for the scoring, the "master" document is >>>>> actually >>>>> the document with the highest score in the collapsed group. >>>>> >>>>> As for Solr 1.3 compatibility... well... it's very hart to tell. All >>>>> latest >>>>> patch are certainly *not* 1.3 compatible (I think they're also >>>>> depending >>>>> on >>>>> some changes in lucene which are not available for solr 1.3). I guess >>>>> you'll >>>>> have to try some of the old patches, but I'm not sure about their >>>>> stability. >>>>> >>>>> cheers, >>>>> Uri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> R. Tan wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Uri. How does paging and scoring work when using field >>>>>> collapsing? >>>>>> What patch works with 1.3? Is it production ready? >>>>>> >>>>>> R >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Uri Boness <ubon...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> The development on this patch is quite active. It works well for >>>>>>> single >>>>>>> solr instance, but distributed search (ie. shards) is not yet >>>>>>> supported. >>>>>>> Using this page you can group search results based on a specific >>>>>>> field. >>>>>>> There are two flavors of field collapsing - adjacent and >>>>>>> non-adjacent, >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> former collapses only document which happen to be located next to >>>>>>> each >>>>>>> other >>>>>>> in the otherwise-non-collapsed results set. The later (the >>>>>>> non-adjacent) >>>>>>> one >>>>>>> collapses all documents with the same field value (regardless of >>>>>>> their >>>>>>> position in the otherwise-non-collapsed results set). Note, that >>>>>>> non-adjacent performs better than adjacent one. There's currently >>>>>>> discussion >>>>>>> to extend this support so in addition to collapsing the documents, >>>>>>> extra >>>>>>> information will be returned for the collapsed documents (see the >>>>>>> discussion >>>>>>> on the issue page). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Uri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> R. Tan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think this is what I'm looking for. What is the status of this >>>>>>>> patch? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:00 PM, R. Tan <tanrihae...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Solrers, >>>>>>>>> I would like to get your opinion on how to best approach a search >>>>>>>>> requirement that I have. The scenario is I have a set of business >>>>>>>>> listings >>>>>>>>> that may be group into one parent business (such as 7-eleven having >>>>>>>>> several >>>>>>>>> locations). On the results page, I only want 7-eleven to show up >>>>>>>>> once >>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>> also show how many locations matched the query (facet filtered by >>>>>>>>> state, >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> example) and maybe a preview of the some of the locations. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Searching for the business name is straightforward but the >>>>>>>>> locations >>>>>>>>> within >>>>>>>>> the a result is quite tricky. I can do the opposite, searching for >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> locations and faceting on business names, but it will still >>>>>>>>> basically >>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> same thing and repeat results with the same business name. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Any advice? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> R >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >
