Hi,
Davide’s proposal (let users specify maximum number of entries per facet) is
basically a generalisation of my proposal to return a facet if there is more
than 1 entry in the facet. I think we can try either, but we might want to test
the performance on cases with large result sets where
Thanks, Michael. FWIW, with the use cases I have in mind, getting back a
count that is less than the actual number (and some indication that there
is an unknown amount more) would be perfectly fine if it makes us go from
potentially unacceptable performance to acceptable performance.
Laurie
On
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Davide Giannella dav...@apache.org wrote:
On 09/12/2014 17:10, Michael Marth wrote:
...
The use cases problematic case for counting the facets I have in mind are
when a query returns millions of results. This is problematic when one wants
to retrieve the
2014-12-10 10:17 GMT+01:00 Ard Schrijvers a.schrijv...@onehippo.com:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Davide Giannella dav...@apache.org
wrote:
On 09/12/2014 17:10, Michael Marth wrote:
...
The use cases problematic case for counting the facets I have in mind
are when a query returns
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Ard Schrijvers
a.schrijv...@onehippo.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Davide Giannella dav...@apache.org wrote:
On 09/12/2014 17:10, Michael Marth wrote:
...
The use cases problematic case for counting the facets I have in mind are
when a query
2014-12-08 8:15 GMT+01:00 Thomas Mueller muel...@adobe.com:
Hi,
I think we should do:
1. conservative approach, do not touch JCR API
select [jcr:path], [facet(jcr:primaryType)] from [nt:base]
where contains([text, 'oak']);
The column facet(jcr:primaryType) would return the facet
Hi,
I would like the counts.
I agree. I guess this feature doesn't make much sense without the counts.
1, 2, and 4 seem like
bad ideas
1 undercuts the idea that we'd use lucene/solr to get decent
performance.
Sorry I don't understand... This is just about the API to retrieve the
data. It
Hi,
I agree that facets *with* counts are better than without counts, but disagree
that they are worthless without counts (see the Amazon link Tommaso posted
earlier on this thread). There is value in providing the information that
*some* results will appear when a user selects a facet .
The
On 09 Dec 2014, at 18:10, Michael Marth mma...@adobe.com wrote:
Hi,
I agree that facets *with* counts are better than without counts, but
disagree that they are worthless without counts (see the Amazon link Tommaso
posted earlier on this thread). There is value in providing the
I guess that returning the facets without the counts really weakens the
story of facets. Yes, amazon does it for some searches, but usually it
does not. For the use case I have in mind, I would like the counts.
Options 3 or 6 seem like decent avenues to explore. 1, 2, and 4 seem like
bad ideas (1
Hi,
I think we should do:
1. conservative approach, do not touch JCR API
select [jcr:path], [facet(jcr:primaryType)] from [nt:base]
where contains([text, 'oak']);
The column facet(jcr:primaryType) would return the facet data. I think
that's a good approach. The question is, which rows
Hi all,
I am resurrecting this thread as I've managed to find some time to start
having a look at how to support faceting in Oak query engine.
One important thing is that I agree with Ard (and I've seen it like that
from the beginning) that since we have Lucene and Solr Oak index
implementations
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 4:25 AM, Alexander Klimetschek
aklim...@adobe.com wrote:
...you can leverage some kind of caching though. In practice, if you have a
public site
with content that does not change permanently, the facet values are pretty
much
stable, and authorization shouldn't cost
Hey Alex,
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 4:25 AM, Alexander Klimetschek
aklim...@adobe.com wrote:
On 29.08.2014, at 03:10, Ard Schrijvers a.schrijv...@onehippo.com wrote:
1) When exposing faceting from Jackrabbit, we wouldn't use virtual
layers any more to expose them over pure JCR spec API's.
Hello,
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Lukas Smith sm...@pooteeweet.org wrote:
Aloha,
you should definitely talk to the HippoCMS developers. They forked Jackrabbit
2.x to add facetting as virtual nodes. They ran into some performance issues
but I am sure they still have value-able
On 29.08.2014, at 03:10, Ard Schrijvers a.schrijv...@onehippo.com wrote:
1) When exposing faceting from Jackrabbit, we wouldn't use virtual
layers any more to expose them over pure JCR spec API's. Instead, we
would extend the jcr QueryResult to have next to getRows/getNodes/etc
also expose
Hi Laurie,
2014-08-25 18:43 GMT+02:00 Laurie Byrum lby...@adobe.com:
Hi Tommaso,
I am happy to see this thread!
;-)
Questions:
Do you expect to want to support hierarchical or pivoted facets soonish?
I would say 'why not' if we have a valid use case.
If so, does that influence this
2014-08-25 19:02 GMT+02:00 Lukas Smith sm...@pooteeweet.org:
Aloha,
Aloha!
you should definitely talk to the HippoCMS developers. They forked
Jackrabbit 2.x to add facetting as virtual nodes. They ran into some
performance issues but I am sure they still have value-able feedback on
This looks useful Tommaso. With OAK-2005 we should be able to support
multiple LuceneIndexes and manage them easily.
If we can abstract all this out and just expose the facet information
as virtual node that would simplify the stuff for end users. Probably
we can have a read only NodeStore impl
Hi all,
since this has been asked every now and then [1] and since I think it's a
pretty useful and common feature for search engine nowadays I'd like to
discuss introduction of facets [2] for the Oak query engine.
Pros: having facets in search results usually helps filtering (drill down)
the
Hi Tommaso,
I am happy to see this thread!
Questions:
Do you expect to want to support hierarchical or pivoted facets soonish?
If so, does that influence this decision?
Do you know how ACLs will come into play with your facet implementation?
If so, does that influence this decision? :-)
Thanks!
Aloha,
you should definitely talk to the HippoCMS developers. They forked Jackrabbit
2.x to add facetting as virtual nodes. They ran into some performance issues
but I am sure they still have value-able feedback on this.
regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
On 25 Aug 2014, at 18:43, Laurie Byrum
22 matches
Mail list logo
