: that facet value and see all documents. I thought facet.missing=true was
: the answer.
...
: facquery.setFacetMinCount(1);
Hmm, yeah -- it looks like facet.missing doesn't take facet.mincount into
consideration.
I don't remember if that was intentional or not, but as a special case
one-off count it seems like a toss up as to wether it would be more or
less surprising to hide it if it's below the mincount. (it's very similar
to doing one off facet.query for example, and those are always included in
the response and don't consider the facet.mincount either)
In general, this seems like a low impact thing though, correct? i mean:
the main advantage of facet.mincount is to reduce what could be a very
large amount of useless data from being stream from the server->client,
particularly in the case of using facet.sort where you really need the
consraints eliminated server side in order to get the sort=limit applied
correctly.
but with the facet.missing value, it's just a single value per field that
can easily be ignored by the client if it's not desired because of the
mincount. or to put it another way: the amount of work needed to ignor
this on the client, is less then the amount of work to make it
configurable to ignore it on the server.
-Hoss
