Thank for the suggestion! I like the descriptiveness of it. My only hesitation is that is supports more than range intersection based on the provided QueryType instance (e.g., within, contains). I _imagine_ that intersection will be most common, but I don’t really know of course. I thought about generalizing your suggestion to something like “Range Relation Faceting,” but fear that would be confusing.
Thanks again! Cheers, -Greg On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 10:19 Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe "Range Intersect Faceting"? > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 1:11 PM Greg Miller <gsmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Folks- >> >> Naming is hard! (But you all know that already). >> >> Marc D'Mello and I have been working on a new faceting implementation >> that's meant to complement Lucene's existing range-relation queries (e.g., >> LongRange#newIntersectsQuery, DoubleRange#newContainsQuery, >> LongRangeDocValuesField#newSlowIntersectsQuery, etc.). Well, I should say >> Marc is working on the change and I'm just providing nit-picky feedback on >> his PR, which is here: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/11901. The >> general idea of this feature is to allow users to get facet counts for >> these sorts of range-relation filters before they're applied. For example, >> if a user is indexing ranges with their documents, they may have a set of >> query-ranges they want to facet on, based on some range relationship (e.g., >> intersection, contains, etc.). >> >> As a concrete example, imagine that documents contain a price range >> (maybe a document represents some e-commerce product but the price varies >> based on some configuration options), and a user wants to build a price >> range filter that applies filtering based on whether-or-not the two ranges >> intersect (i.e., DoubleRange#newIntersectsQuery to apply a price range >> filter). This user wants faceting capabilities over the different >> price ranges they want to make available, so they need a way to facet over >> a list of provided query-ranges, based on the "intersect" relationship with >> the doc-encoded ranges. That's what Marc's "RangeOnRange" faceting is >> trying to accomplish. >> >> In my opinion, the PR is really close to being ready (thanks again >> Marc!), but I'm wondering if we can come up with a more descriptive name. >> As it currently stands, the feature is termed "RangeOnRange Faceting," >> which feels just a bit wonky to me. That said, I can't really come up with >> anything better. >> >> ** Does anyone have suggestions on a better name? ** >> >> Any / all suggestions appreciated! (And of course, any other input on the >> PR is welcome if anyone is interested). >> >> Cheers, >> -Greg >> > > > -- > http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) > http://www.the111shift.com (play) >
