*1)* With faceting, how does facet.query perform in comparison to
facet.field? I'm just wondering this as in my use case, I need to facet over
a field -- which would get me the top n facets for that field, but I also
need to show the count for a "selected filter" which might have a relatively
low count so it doesn't appear in the top n returned facets. So the solution
would be to 'ensure' its presence by adding a 'facet.query=cat:val' in
addition to my facet.field=cat.

I want to do this to quite a few fields.

Related/example-based question:
When I facet over a field, and something gets returned, eg: John Smith (83),
and I also 'ensure' this facet's presence by having it in
facet.query=author:"John Smith", are two different calculations performed?
Or is the facet returned by facet.field also used by facet.query to obtain
the count?



*2) *Is there a performance issue if I have around, say, 20 facet.query
conditions along with 10 facet.fields? 3/10 of those fields have around
100,000 possible values. Remaining have a few hundred each.



*3)* I've rummaged around a bit, looking for info on when to use q vs fq. I
want to clear my doubts for a certain use case.

Where should my date range queries go? In q or fq? The default settings in
my site show results from the past 90 days with buttons to show stuff from
the last month and week as well. But the user is allowed to use a slider to
apply any date range... this is allowed, but it's not /that/ common. 
I definitely use fq for filtering various tags. Choosing a tag is a common
activity.

Should the date range query go in fq? As I mentioned, the default view shows
stuff from the past 90 days. So on each new day does this like invalidate
stuff in the cache? Or is stuff stored in the filtered cache in some way
that makes it easy to fetch stuff from the past 89 days when a query is
performed the next day?



--
View this message in context: 
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/A-few-random-questions-about-solr-queries-tp3986562.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Reply via email to