Hi Mihai, what about having an extra field per level?
doc1: [day:monday], [hour:11pm], [minute:22], [second:00], [year:2011], [month:October], [calendar day:11]... This way you do not need to hack and you can easily extend your format if you want to add new dimensions in future. I did not work with Pivot-Facets but I think this is what they were made for. http://wiki.apache.org/solr/HierarchicalFaceting However, if you want to drilldown the full path this will be a huge performance-bottleneck. If I were in your shoes, I would try to find a usefull balance for what you want and what your users need. If your users are searching for a special document with a special keyphrase and they are able to specify year, month and day just by clicking on it, wouldn't this be enough for 95% of all queries? Why killing the overall performance for just 5% of your queries? Think about whether it would be better in sense of performance and in sense of usability, if you refine your results as soon as a user decides that he/she needs to add a new date-detail to the query. Hope this helps, Em Am 21.09.2011 21:44, schrieb Mihai Caraman: > 2011/9/21 Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> > >> What do you mean "up to lvl3"? >> > "as *deep *as lvl3" :P > In this example, let's look at these lvls as a tree(like n-ary tree) with > root in a unique value at(the top) lvl 1 > > ..one with category [l1, l2, l3] and one with [l1, l2], > > All documents have the same depth (of categories) so as: > lvl1 lvl2 lvl3 > doc1: monday, 1pm, 3min > doc2: monday, 1pm, 4min > > doc3: monday, 2pm, 3min > > and you ask to count "l1", you will get2. > > i'm looking to get(with drilling all the way down) (with *:number* being > the value=number of results): > > monday:3{ > -1pm:2{ > -3min:1 > -4min:1 > } > -2pm:1{ > -3min:1 > } > } > > I've managed to do this with repetive searches > I search for monday, get 1pm,2pm > Then I search for monday/1pm , get 3min,4min > And Then I search for monday/1pm/3min... and so forth for every > branch in this *categoryTree* > > The question being, is there a faster way?isn't DrillDown.query(...) meant > for this? > > Where can i find more documentation on this kind of search, I'm interested > in occupied space and computing time, because I imagine it's not meant for > huge depths or lots of categories. > > Again thanks for the reply and I appreciate very much this fantastic > feature! > Mihai > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
