On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 21:58 +0300, Shai Erera wrote: > What's maxCount? What I mean is that if you create a FacetRequest with > numResults = 5*K (for example), then you get the top-5K categories and can > choose the best top-K of those, by their label. Yes, this will hurt top-K > computation the least, but is not guaranteed to return the correct top-K. maxCount = numResults
> > The other alternative, which you should test, is to create a > FacetResultsHandler which labels every ordinal and compares by their label. > While it will be slower, perhaps it's acceptable for your app. I will try it! > > Regarding the ranges, I assume you're not talking about numeric ranges > (cause we have a RangeFacetRequest for that), but something else? > E.g. maybe show Year/1981-1990 and Year/1991-2000? Is that the case? when lucene 5.x will be released or these api ported to 4.x? > > If so, how would you decide which buckets to create? And can the buckets > pre-created at indexing already? E.g. > Year/1981-1990/1982/Jan-Mar/Feb/1-10/8? > This can definitely turn into an interesting usecase and feature to have in > Lucene, but I'd need to understand better what sort of ranges do u have in > mind. > Maybe we can discuss that on a separate thread? > > Shai Nicola > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Nicola Buso <nb...@ebi.ac.uk> wrote: > > > Hi Shai, > > > > if I'm correctly understanding, you are suggesting to use maxCount in a > > new FacetResultHandler to subset the whole facet hierarchy so that the > > counting still has good performances; this is not guaranteeing it will > > obtain maxcCount values but some approximations to it. > > > > The second solution, get all children and than sort by label, is not > > feasible because the facet values are spread into a big range. > > > > Another thing that should be nice to introduce is grouping the result > > facet values; like for date, but for many other things that are > > measurable, the values should be spread into big ranges and giving a > > representation to the user is difficult and probably not useful. If you > > can group values you should give the user a good approximation. > > Do you think is feasible to create a new facet hierarchy at runtime > > composed by groups of values and fill the values in the original > > hierarchy in the new created one? Too expensive? > > > > > > Nicola. > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 20:49 +0300, Shai Erera wrote: > > > Well, in general it can be done, but it won't be cheap. You can > > > implement a FacetResultsHandler which instead of sorting by value will > > > sort by the category label. But that means you're going to label > > > *every single category* in order to sort by it. > > > > > > > > > Maybe if you can do away with approximations, you can ask for top-50 > > > and return the "top by label" from that list. > > > Or, if the number of children is bounded, maybe ask to return all of > > > them, and then just sort by label. I think that sorting is cheaper > > > than updating a heap. > > > > > > Shai > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Nicola Buso <nb...@ebi.ac.uk> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I was thinking about it, what is needed is the 1st, than, > > > supposing > > > FacetRequest maxCount is setted to 10 I want the latest 10 > > > years with > > > respective counts, also if on year 2000 there are more counts > > > than in > > > 2013. > > > > > > > > > Nicola. > > > > > > On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 18:40 +0300, Shai Erera wrote: > > > > Do you want your top-K to be computed by label too? Or first > > > deduce > > > > the top-K facets, then sort them otherwise? > > > > > > > > Shai > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Nicola Buso > > > <nb...@ebi.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I was looking to change the order of the facet > > > results; in > > > > this case I > > > > would like to order by the facet label instead of > > > the facet > > > > value > > > > (count). > > > > > > > > An example is a facet on dates; suppose the facet is > > > saved as > > > > YYYY/MM/dd, I would like obtain values for this date > > > ordered > > > > by the > > > > date; i.e. with depth 1: > > > > > > > > 2013 (2,403,222) > > > > 2012 (3,632.098) > > > > 2011 (1,213,990) > > > > .... > > > > > > > > is this possible? > > > > > > > > > > > > Nicola > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > > java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > > java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
