Hi Erik,

Thanks for the fast update :-)
I will try it soon.

Regards
Eric

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Erik Hatcher <erik.hatc...@gmail.com>wrote:

> I've update the SOLR-792 patch to apply to trunk (using the solr/ directory
> as the root still, not the higher-level trunk/).
>
> This one I think is an important one that I'd love to see eventually part
> of Solr built-in, but the TODO's in TreeFacetComponent ought to be taken
> care of first, to generalize this to N fields levels and maybe some other
> must/nice-to-haves.
>
>        Erik
>
>
>
> On Jul 23, 2010, at 3:45 AM, Eric Grobler wrote:
>
>  Thanks I saw the article,
>>
>> As far as I can tell the trunk archives only go back to the middle of
>> March
>> and the 2 patches are from the beginning of the year.
>>
>> Thus:
>> *These approaches can be tried out easily using a single set of sample
>> data
>> and the Solr example application (assumes current trunk codebase and
>> latest
>> patches posted to the respective issues). **
>>
>> **Is a bit of an over-statement!**
>> *
>> Regards
>> Eric*
>> *
>> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 6:22 AM, Jonathan Rochkind <rochk...@jhu.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Solr does not, yet, at least not simply, as far as I know, but there are
>>> ideas and some JIRA's with maybe some patches:
>>>
>>> http://wiki.apache.org/solr/HierarchicalFaceting
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: rajini maski [rajinima...@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 12:34 AM
>>> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Tree Faceting in Solr 1.4
>>>
>>> I am also looking out for same feature in Solr and very keen to know
>>> whether
>>> it supports this feature of tree faceting... Or we are forced to index in
>>> tree faceting format....like
>>>
>>> 1/2/3/4
>>> 1/2/3
>>> 1/2
>>> 1
>>>
>>> In-case of multilevel faceting it will give only 2 level tree facet is
>>> what
>>> i found..
>>>
>>> If i give query as : country India and state Karnataka and city
>>> bangalore...All what i want is a facet count  1) for condition above. 2)
>>> The
>>> number of states in that Country 3) the number of cities in that state
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Like => Country: India ,State:Karnataka , City: Bangalore <1>
>>>
>>>           State:Karnataka
>>>                    Kerla
>>>                    Tamilnadu
>>>                    Andra Pradesh...and so on....
>>>
>>>           City:  Mysore
>>>                    Hubli
>>>                    Mangalore
>>>                    Coorg and so on...
>>>
>>>
>>> If I am doing
>>> facet=on & facet.field={!ex=State}State & fq={!tag=State}State:Karnataka
>>>
>>> All it gives me is Facets on state excluding only that filter query.. But
>>> i
>>> was not able to do same on third level ..Like  facet.field= Give me the
>>> counts of  cities also in state Karantaka..
>>> Let me know solution for this...
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Rajani Maski
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Eric Grobler <
>>> impalah...@googlemail.com
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>  Thank you for the link.
>>>>
>>>> I was not aware of the multifaceting syntax - this will enable me to run
>>>>
>>> 1
>>>
>>>> less query on the main page!
>>>>
>>>> However this is not a tree faceting feature.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Eric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 4:51 PM, SR <r.steve....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Perhaps the following article can help:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://www.craftyfella.com/2010/01/faceting-and-multifaceting-syntax-in.html
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -S
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 22, 2010, at 5:39 PM, Eric Grobler wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  Hi Solr Community
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I have:
>>>>>> COUNTRY CITY
>>>>>> Germany Berlin
>>>>>> Germany Hamburg
>>>>>> Spain   Madrid
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can I do faceting like:
>>>>>> Germany
>>>>>> Berlin
>>>>>> Hamburg
>>>>>> Spain
>>>>>> Madrid
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I tried to apply SOLR-792 to the current trunk but it does not seem
>>>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>
>>>> be
>>>>
>>>>> compatible.
>>>>>> Maybe there is a similar feature existing in the latest builds?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks & Regards
>>>>>> Eric
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>

Reply via email to