Thank you for the advice, Erick! I will take a look at extending the StandardRequestHandler for such usecases.
Erick Erickson wrote: > > I wasn't thinking about this for adding information to the *request*. > Rather, in this > case the autocomplete uses an Ajax call that just uses the TermsComponent > to get the autocomplete data and display it. This is just textual, so > adding > it to the > request is client-side magic. > > If you want your app to have access to the meta-data for other purposes, > you'd > just query and cache it from the app. You could use that to build up the > links > you embed in the page for new queries if you chose, no custom handlers > necessary. > > Otherwise, I guess you'd create a custom request handler, that seems like > a > reasonable place. > > Best > Erick > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Em <mailformailingli...@yahoo.de> wrote: > >> >> Hi Erick, >> >> in some usecases I really think that your suggestion with some >> unique-documents for meta-information is a good approach to solve some >> issues. >> However there is a hurdle for me and maybe you can help me to clear it: >> >> What is the best way to get such meta-data? >> I see three possible approaches: >> 1st: get it in another request >> 2nd: get it with a requestHandler >> 3rd: get it with a searchComponent >> >> I think the 2nd and 3rd are the cleanest ways. >> But to make a decision between them I run into two problems: >> RequestHandler: Should I extend the StandardRequestHandler to do what I >> need? If so, I could just query my index for the needed information and >> add >> it to the request before I pass it up the SearchComponents. >> >> SearchComponent: The problem with the SearchComponent is the distributed >> thing and how to test it. However, if this would be the cleanest way to >> go, >> one should go it. >> >> What would you do, if you want to add some meta-information to your >> request >> that was not given by the user? >> >> Regards, >> Em >> >> >> Erick Erickson wrote: >> > >> > First, the redundancy is certainly there, but that's what Solr does, >> > handles >> > large >> > amounts of data. 4 million documents is actually a pretty small corpus >> by >> > Solr >> > standards, so you may well be able to do exactly what you propose with >> > acceptable performance/size. I'd advise just trying it with, say, >> 200,000 >> > docs. >> > Why 200K? because index growth is non-linear with the first bunch of >> > documents >> > taking up more space than the second. So index 100K, examine your >> indexes >> > and index 100K more. Now use the delta to extrapolate to 4M. >> > >> > You don't need to store the taxonomy in each doc for auto-complete, you >> > can >> > get your auto-completion from a different index. Or you can index your >> > taxonomies >> > in a "special" document in Solr and query the (unique) field in that >> > document for >> > autocomplete. >> > >> > For faceting, you do need taxonomies. But remember that the nature of >> the >> > inverted index is that unique terms are only stored once, and the >> document >> > ID for each document that that term appears in is recorded. So if you >> have >> > 3/europe/germany/berlin stored in 1M documents, your index space is >> really >> > <string length + overhead> + <space for 1M ids>. >> > >> > Best >> > Erick >> > >> > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 4:53 AM, Damien Fontaine >> > <dfonta...@rosebud.fr>wrote: >> > >> >> Yes, i am not obliged to store taxonomies. >> >> >> >> My taxonomies are type of >> >> >> >> english_taxon_label = Berlin >> >> english_taxon_type = location >> >> english_taxon_hierarchy = 0/world >> >> 1/world/europe >> >> 2/world/europe/germany >> >> >> >> 3/world/europe/germany/berlin >> >> >> >> I need *_taxon_hierarchy to faceting and label to auto complete. >> >> >> >> With a RDBMs, i have 100 entry max for one taxo, but with solr and 4 >> >> million documents the redundandcy is huge, no ? >> >> >> >> And i have 10 different taxonomies per document .... >> >> >> >> Damien >> >> >> >> Le 24/01/2011 10:30, Em a écrit : >> >> >> >> Hi Damien, >> >>> >> >>> why are you storing the taxonomies? >> >>> When it comes to faceting, it only depends on indexed values. If >> there >> >>> is >> >>> a >> >>> meaningful difference between the indexed and the stored value, I >> would >> >>> prefer to use an RDBMs or something like that to reduce redundancy. >> >>> >> >>> Does this help? >> >>> >> >>> Regards >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Taxonomy-in-SOLR-tp2317955p2320666.html >> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > > -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Taxonomy-in-SOLR-tp2317955p2321340.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
