Ah! that's significant. The latency is likely due to building the
OrdinalMap (which maps segment ords to global ords) ... "dvhash" (assuming
the relevant fields are not multivalued) will very likely work; "dvhash"
doesn't map to global ords, so doesn't need to build the OrdinalMap (which
gets built
> Does this happen on a warm searcher (are subsequent requests with no
intervening updates _ever_ fast?)?
Subsequent response times very fast if searcher remains open. As a control
test, I faceted on the same field that I used in the q param.
1. Start solr
2. Execute q=resultId:x&rows=0
=>
on!). Does this happen on a warm searcher (are subsequent requests
with no intervening updates _ever_ fast?)?
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 6:13 PM mmb1234 wrote:
> Ok. I'll try that. Meanwhile query on resultId is subsecond response. But
> the
> immediate next query for faceting takes 40+
Ok. I'll try that. Meanwhile query on resultId is subsecond response. But the
immediate next query for faceting takes 40+secs. The core has 185million
docs and 63GB index size.
curl
'http://localhost:8983/solr/TestCollection_shard1_replica_t3/query?q=resultId:xx
nalMap creation and
array allocation, if either/both of those contribute to the latency you're
finding).
Michael
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 4:42 PM mmb1234 wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am seeing very slow response from json faceting against a single core
> (though core is shard leader in
Hello,
I am seeing very slow response from json faceting against a single core
(though core is shard leader in a collection).
Fields processId and resultId are non-multivalued, indexed and docvalues
string (not text).
Soft Commit = 5sec (opensearcher=true) and Hard Commit = 10sec because new
"parentCount": "unique(_root_)",
},
"domain":{
"excludeTags":[
"TOP",
"MID",
// "LOW"
]
21 at 10:34, Lance Snell wrote:
>
> Any examples would be greatly appreciated.
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021, 2:25 AM Lance Snell wrote:
>
> > Hey all,
> >
> > I am having trouble finding current examples of multi-select faceting for
> > nested documents. Specif
Any examples would be greatly appreciated.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021, 2:25 AM Lance Snell wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I am having trouble finding current examples of multi-select faceting for
> nested documents. Specifically ones with *multiple *levels of nested
> documents.
>
> My
Hey all,
I am having trouble finding current examples of multi-select faceting for
nested documents. Specifically ones with *multiple *levels of nested
documents.
My current schema has a parent document, two child documents(siblings), and
a grandchild document. I am using the JSON API
occured at 19:00 GMT+00. This facet puts it in the
> bucket of that day, which starts at 00:00. I’m living in GMT+2 timezone, so
> clock was 21:00 and that event occured on the same day with me, which is all
> good and correct.
>
> Another event occured at 23:00 GMT+00, Day 2. At that
ne, so
clock was 21:00 and that event occured on the same day with me, which is all
good and correct.
Another event occured at 23:00 GMT+00, Day 2. At that time, it was 01:00 Day 3
here. Faceting puts the event at Day 2 00:00’s bucket, when converted to my
timezone, puts the event on Day 2. B
tps://youtu.be/qItRilJLj5o
>
> From: solr-user@lucene.apache.org At: 12/10/20 21:42:19To:
> solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: increasing number of threads for faceting in JSON format
>
> Hi Christine Munendra et al,
>
> Wow, you dag into the code and checked weather
solr-user@lucene.apache.org At: 12/10/20 21:42:19To:
solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: increasing number of threads for faceting in JSON format
Hi Christine Munendra et al,
Wow, you dag into the code and checked weather threads are being blown in
range and term queries! I wish one day to be
s have support for specifying the number of
> > threads." sentence, I wonder if perhaps a "does not" got inadvertently
> > omitted i.e. "Currently, JSON facets does not have support for specifying
> > the number of threads." was intended?
> >
> > Let m
ifying the number of
> threads." sentence, I wonder if perhaps a "does not" got inadvertently
> omitted i.e. "Currently, JSON facets does not have support for specifying
> the number of threads." was intended?
>
> Let me share what I learnt from digging into the co
s." was intended?
Let me share what I learnt from digging into the code:
* "facet.threads" is for field value faceting [1] [2] but you're interested in
(JSON) field range faceting as well as JSON field value faceting.
* The area of the code [3] that does the JSON field
ne can
> > formulate queries in JSON format as well as tweak parameters. Currently I
> > have a logs collection (ca 6GB large) with a dozen of attributes running
> in
> > single server mode (F:\solr_deployment\solr-8.7.0\bin\solr.cmd start -h
> > localhost -p
gle server mode (F:\solr_deployment\solr-8.7.0\bin\solr.cmd start -h
> localhost -p -m 4g)
>
> I am playing with faceting functionality in solr and query a couple of
> attributes there. My typical query is:
>
> GET http://localhost:/solr/db/query
> <http://arteika:
start -h
localhost -p -m 4g)
I am playing with faceting functionality in solr and query a couple of
attributes there. My typical query is:
GET http://localhost:/solr/db/query
<http://arteika:/solr/logan/query> HTTP/1.1
content-type: application/json
{
"query" : &
wo are easy to confuse. Apologies for abbreviating
it at points in my earlier email - I was doing it for brevity and
didn't intend the confusion.
> I think that "terms" local-param to faceting was a purely internal thing that
> wasn't documented
That may be. But
This is confusing because when you write {!terms}, it suggests a reference
to the TermsQParser, but when you write {!terms=a,b,c} it suggests
local-params, with key "terms" and value "a,b,c" -- entirely different
things. I think that "terms" local-param to faceti
Hey all,
I was using the {!terms} local parameter on some traditional field
facets to make sure particular values were returned.
e.g.
facet=true&facet.field={!terms='fantasy,scifi,mystery'}genre_s&f.genre_s.facet.mincount=2
On single-shard collections in 8.6.3 this worked as I expected -
"fanta
Sorry, correction, taking "the" time
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 22:18:30 +0300
uyilmaz wrote:
> Thanks for taking time to write a detailed answer.
>
> We use Solr to both store our data and to perform aggregations, using
> faceting or streaming expressions. When required anal
Thanks for taking time to write a detailed answer.
We use Solr to both store our data and to perform aggregations, using faceting
or streaming expressions. When required analysis is too complex to do in Solr,
we export large query results from Solr to a more capable analysis tool.
So I guess
Hmm. Fields used for faceting will also be used for filtering, which is a kind
of search. Are docValues OK for filtering? I expect they might be slow the
first time, then cached.
wunder
Walter Underwood
wun...@wunderwood.org
http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog)
> On Oct 19, 2020, at 11
uyilmaz:
Hmm, that _is_ confusing. And inaccurate.
In this context, it should read something like
The Text field should have indexed="true" docValues=“false" if used for
searching
but not faceting and the String field should have indexed="false"
docValues=“true"
> Thanks! This also contributed to my confusion:
>
> https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/8_4/faceting.html#field-value-faceting-parameters
>
> "If you want Solr to perform both analysis (for searching) and faceting on
> the full literal strings, use the copyField directive
Thanks! This also contributed to my confusion:
https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/8_4/faceting.html#field-value-faceting-parameters
"If you want Solr to perform both analysis (for searching) and faceting on the
full literal strings, use the copyField directive in your Schema to creat
I think this is all explained quite well in the Ref Guide:
https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/8_6/docvalues.html
DocValues is a different way to index/store values. Faceting is a
primary use case where docValues are better than what 'indexed=true'
gives you.
Regards,
Alex.
On M
Hey all,
>From my little experiments, I see that (if I didn't make a stupid mistake) we
>can facet on fields marked as both indexed and stored being false:
I'm suprised by this, I thought I would need to index it. Can you confirm this?
Regards
--
uyilmaz
orms,omitTermFreqAndPositions}"
From: Poornima Ponnuswamy
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 7:01 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Terms faceting and EnumField
Hello,
We have solr 6.6 version.
Below is the field and field type that is defined in solr schema.
Below
Hello,
We have solr 6.6 version.
Below is the field and field type that is defined in solr schema.
Below is the configuration for the enum
servicerequestcorrective
servicerequestplanned
servicerequest
Can anyone provide some light on the issue I am having?. Thanks!
On 5/20/20, 4:55 PM, "Ponnuswamy, Poornima (GE Healthcare)"
wrote:
Hello,
We have solr 6.6 version.
Below is the field and field type that is defined in solr schema.
Below is the configuration
Hello,
We have solr 6.6 version.
Below is the field and field type that is defined in solr schema.
Below is the configuration for the enum
servicerequestcorrective
servicerequestplanned
servicerequestinstallationandupgrade
hll stands for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperLogLog
You will not get the exact distinct count, but a distinct count very close to
the real number. It is very fast and memory efficient for large number of
distinct values.
> Am 10.03.2020 um 00:25 schrieb Nicolas Paris :
>
>
> Erick Erick
Erick Erickson writes:
> Have you looked at the HyperLogLog stuff? Here’s at least a mention of
> it: https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/8_4/the-stats-component.html
I am used to hll in the context of count distinct values -- cardinality.
I have to admit that section
https://lucene.apache.o
Toke Eskildsen writes:
> JSON faceting allows you to skip the fine counting with the parameter
> refine:
I also tried the facet.refine parameter, but didn't notice any improvement.
>> I am wondering how I could filter the documents to get approximate
>> facets ?
>
Have you looked at the HyperLogLog stuff? Here’s at least a mention of it:
https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/8_4/the-stats-component.html
Best,
Erick
> On Mar 9, 2020, at 02:39, Nicolas Paris wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
> Environment:
> - SolrCloud 8.4.1
> - 4 shards with xmx = 120GO and ssd
gle-shard
so that might have a negative impact on overall speed.
JSON faceting allows you to skip the fine counting with the parameter
refine:
https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/8_4/json-facet-api.html#terms-facet
Should be easy to try.
> I am wondering how I could filter the documents to get
Hello,
Environment:
- SolrCloud 8.4.1
- 4 shards with xmx = 120GO and ssd disks
- 50M documents / 40GO physical per shard
- mainly large texts fields and also, one multivalue/docvalue/indexed string
list of 15 values per document
Goal:
I want to provide terms facet on a string multivalue field.
My first guess is that you have multiple or out-of-date jars in your classpath
on those machines.
Best,
Erick
> On Feb 5, 2020, at 5:53 PM, Joe Obernberger
> wrote:
>
> Hi All - getting this error intermittently on a solr cloud cluster.
> Sometimes the heatmap generation works, sometimes no
Hi All - getting this error intermittently on a solr cloud cluster.
Sometimes the heatmap generation works, sometimes not. I tracked it
down to some of the nodes are reporting this error:
null:java.lang.RuntimeException: java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: Could not
initialize class org.apache.s
q=
> > &fq={!parent which="my_doc_type:Parent"}child_doc_some_field:("30")
> >
> > I now want to facet on certain parent field but want to exclude the above
> > filter query condition entirely. If I had a normal filter query,
> > fq={!tag=test
I had a normal filter query,
> fq={!tag=test}parent_doc_field1:("30") then I could use that as my exclude
> tag while faceting.
> facet.field={!ex=test}parent_doc_field2&...
>
> But turns out I cannot do that with a block join filter query. Is there
> anyway I c
but want to exclude the above
filter query condition entirely. If I had a normal filter query,
fq={!tag=test}parent_doc_field1:("30") then I could use that as my exclude
tag while faceting.
facet.field={!ex=test}parent_doc_field2&...
But turns out I cannot do that with a block join filte
> > >
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > Is there any tutorial or example how to use more like this
> > functionality
> > > > when we have some other constraints set by the user through faceting
> > > > parameters like price range, or product category for example?
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Roland
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
s Roland <
> szucs.rol...@bookandwalk.hu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > Is there any tutorial or example how to use more like this
> functionality
> > > when we have some other constraints set by the user through faceting
> > > parameters like price range, or product category for example?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Roland
> > >
> >
>
in a filter query (fq)
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 2:40 PM Szűcs Roland
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Is there any tutorial or example how to use more like this functionality
> > when we have some other constraints set by the user through faceting
> > par
The easiest way will be to pass in a filter query (fq)
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 2:40 PM Szűcs Roland
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Is there any tutorial or example how to use more like this functionality
> when we have some other constraints set by the user through faceting
> parameters l
Hi All,
Is there any tutorial or example how to use more like this functionality
when we have some other constraints set by the user through faceting
parameters like price range, or product category for example?
Cheers,
Roland
Thanks for bring closure to this. Yeah, “escaping hell” is something that
happens to us all, something that works in a browser doesn’t work
from SolrJ and neither one may work with curl and……
Pretty often, BTW, I look at the Solr log. It takes a little practice to
reconstruct the query, but it’s
Thanks for your reply! Yes, it turned out to be an issue with the way the
request was being sent, which was cURL that required special handling and
escaping of spaces and special characters. Using another client cleared
this issue and the request below worked perfectly now.
Best,
A.
On Thu, Jul 4
Might be a formatting error with my mail client, but the very first line is not
well formed.
q: * is incorrect
q=*:*
I do not see that example on the page either. Looks like you took the bit
that starts with stats=true and mis-typed the q clause.
Best,
Erick
> On Jul 3, 2019, at 5:08 AM, Ah
Hi,
As per the documentation recommendation of using pivot with stats component
instead (
https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/8_1/faceting.html#combining-stats-component-with-pivots),
replacing the stats options that were previously used with the newer pivot
options as follows:
q: *
stats=true
s
Hi,
As per the documentation recommendation of using pivot with stats component
instead (
https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/8_1/faceting.html#combining-stats-component-with-pivots),
replacing the stats options that were previously used with the newer pivot
options as follows:
q: *
stats=true
s
Hi,
How can stats field value be calculated for top facet values? In other
words, the following request parameters should return the stats.field
measures for facets sorted by count:
q: *
wt: json
stats: true
stats.facet: authors_s
stats.field: average_rating_f
facet.missing: true
f.authors_s.face
Hi,
I am trying to use JSON faceting in SOLR 7.3 along with grouping documents and
noticed that group.facet=true is not working with json.facet but it works with
flat faceting.
Query Format I used:
http://localhost:8983/solr/Collection/select?q=*:*&facet=true&facet.mincount=2&am
Hi all! First question to the group so hopefully this is the right way to
ask a question :)
I watched one of Trey Grainger's talks in which he said that the new
relatedness metric is an improvement on MoreLikeThis (MLT). I would like
to use it to analyze a set of text files from different publis
Have a look at "invariants" for your requestHandler in solrconfig.xml.
It might be an option for you.
Regards
Bernd
Am 22.05.19 um 22:23 schrieb RaviTeja:
Hello Solr Expert,
How are you?
Am trying to ignore faceting for some of the fields. Can you please help me
out to ignore face
parameter.
Likely the easiest would be to do that in the application I assume you have
between Solr and your users.
Best,
Erick
> On May 22, 2019, at 1:23 PM, RaviTeja wrote:
>
> Hello Solr Expert,
>
> How are you?
>
> Am trying to ignore faceting for some of the fields. C
Hello Solr Expert,
How are you?
Am trying to ignore faceting for some of the fields. Can you please help me
out to ignore faceting using solrconfig.xml.
I tried but I can ignore faceting all the fields that useless. I'm trying
to ignore some specific fields.
Really Appreciate your help fo
maybe quite late to the party but for the benefit of future readers,
experimentation with facet.range.method might be helpful (for solr versions
6 and above) as it allows us to use docValues as well for range faceting
--
Sent from: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-User-f472068.html
Schema browser in the admin UI.
Jan Høydahl
> 27. apr. 2019 kl. 21:06 skrev Sharmadha :
>
> Following
> https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/7_7/solr-tutorial.html#field-facets , I
> see in the documents , there is only genre field. In the example for
> faceting , which file
Following
https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/7_7/solr-tutorial.html#field-facets , I
see in the documents , there is only genre field. In the example for
faceting , which filed do they refer by "genre_str" ? Are genre and
genre_str the same ? But I see different result when I fac
Hi,
I am running into a bug when doing group faceting. This is the same error I
ran into when upgrading from 5.5 to 6.x.
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/solr-6-6-3-intermittent-group-faceting-errors-td4385692.html#a4385865
I had bypassed the error in solr 6.x by turning off docvalues. But in
>> the returned documents themselves. One of the use cases I want to employ
>> is
>> tagging filter queries for fields, and then exclude those filters when
>> faceting. My problem is, however, that in those cases where the filter has
>> 0 matches, the facets aren
e use cases I want to employ
> is
> > tagging filter queries for fields, and then exclude those filters when
> > faceting. My problem is, however, that in those cases where the filter
> has
> > 0 matches, the facets aren't calculated at all.
> >
> > I'm using
ggregation data, and I don't care about
> the returned documents themselves. One of the use cases I want to employ is
> tagging filter queries for fields, and then exclude those filters when
> faceting. My problem is, however, that in those cases where the filter has
> 0 matches
Good evening,
I am using facet json api to query aggregation data, and I don't care about
the returned documents themselves. One of the use cases I want to employ is
tagging filter queries for fields, and then exclude those filters when
faceting. My problem is, however, that in those cases
On 9/25/2018 2:14 PM, Hanjan, Harinder wrote:
Hello!
When starting a new topic on the mailing list, do not reply to an
existing message. Your thread is buried within a thread originally
titled "Extracting top level URL when indexing document".
https://home.apache.org/~hossman/#threadhijack
-Original Message-
From: Alexandre Rafalovitch [mailto:arafa...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 3:14 PM
To: solr-user
Subject: [EXT] Re: Faceting with a multi valued field
What specifically do you control? Just keyword (and "Communities:"
part is locked?) or anythin
;BANFF TRAIL - BNF"
If that's correct, then this does not resolve the issue. I still get 2 values
under Communities facet.
Harinder
-Original Message-
From: John Blythe [mailto:johnbly...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 2:50 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subj
filter query to be a facet query, this will apply the
> query to the resulting facet set instead of the Communities field itself.
>
> --
> John Blythe
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 4:15 PM Hanjan, Harinder
> wrote:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> I am doing facet
you can update your filter query to be a facet query, this will apply the
query to the resulting facet set instead of the Communities field itself.
--
John Blythe
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 4:15 PM Hanjan, Harinder
wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I am doing faceting on a field which has multiple v
Hello!
I am doing faceting on a field which has multiple values and it's yielding
expected but undesireable results. I need different behaviour but not sure how
to formulate a query for it. Here is my current setup.
= Data Set =
{
"Communities":["BANFF TRAIL - B
f EnumFieldType be useable as a facet field?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Peter
>
> Peter Tyrrell, MLIS
> Lead Developer at Andornot
> 1-866-266-2525 x706 / ptyrr...@andornot.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Tyrrell
> Sent: September 14, 2018 3:04 PM
hanks,
Peter
Peter Tyrrell, MLIS
Lead Developer at Andornot
1-866-266-2525 x706 / ptyrr...@andornot.com
-Original Message-
From: Peter Tyrrell
Sent: September 14, 2018 3:04 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Faceting with EnumFieldType in 7.1
Yes.
Peter Tyrrell, MLIS
Yes.
Peter Tyrrell, MLIS
Lead Developer at Andornot
1-866-266-2525 x706 / ptyrr...@andornot.com
-Original Message-
From: Zheng Lin Edwin Yeo
Sent: September 13, 2018 8:15 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Faceting with EnumFieldType in 7.1
Was the document re-indexed in
Was the document re-indexed in Solr 7.1?
Regards,
Edwin
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 at 23:38, Peter Tyrrell wrote:
> I updated an older Solr 4.10 core to Solr 7.1 recently. In so doing, I
> took an old 'gradeLevel_enum' field of type EnumField and made it an
> EnumFieldType, since the former has been d
I updated an older Solr 4.10 core to Solr 7.1 recently. In so doing, I took an
old 'gradeLevel_enum' field of type EnumField and made it an EnumFieldType,
since the former has been deprecated. The old core was able to facet on
gradeLevel_enum, but the new 7.1 core just returns no facet values wh
gt; "0.0",3],
> "gap":100.0,
> "before":0,
> "after":0,
> "between":3,
> "start":0.0,
> "end":2000.0}}
>
> From: Eri
"between":3,
"start":0.0,
"end":2000.0}}
From: Erick Erickson
Sent: Friday, 7 September 2018 12:54:48 PM
To: solr-user
Subject: Re: Solr range faceting
Indeed this doesn't look right. By my count, you're missin
small and post
them. Something like
values 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
and your range query so we could try it.
What is the fieldType definition and field for Value?
And finally, do you get different results if you use json faceting?
Best,
Erick
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 5:51 PM Dwane Hall wrote:
>
0,
"400.0",80,
"500.0",0,
"600.0",0,
"700.0",69,
"800.0",0,
"900.0",0,
"1000.0",0,
"1100.0",0,
"1200.0",0,
&qu
Try facet.minCount=0
Jan
> 7. sep. 2018 kl. 01:07 skrev Dwane Hall :
>
> Good morning Solr community. I'm having a few facet range issues for which
> I'd appreciate some advice when somebody gets a spare couple of minutes.
>
> Environment
> Solr Cloud (7.3.1)
> Single Shard Index, No replicas
Good morning Solr community. I'm having a few facet range issues for which I'd
appreciate some advice when somebody gets a spare couple of minutes.
Environment
Solr Cloud (7.3.1)
Single Shard Index, No replicas
Facet Configuration (I'm using the request params API and useParams at runtime)
"fac
The first two mistakes are:
- using fq for children fields ,
- using a value master_id:0 as a parents' filter
Regarding the question, you are getting non-zero facets because you exclude
filter produces empty results.
Hi All,
I am trying to do faceting with "tag and exclude" on nested document
Below nested document sample
{"master_id":"8219",
"color_label":["White"],
"price":1550.0,
"product_id":"8220",
in a boolean clause,
> something like this:
>
> *q=+{! parent which=type:parent } +{! parent
> which=type:parent }*
>
>
> I've been trying to get facet counts on documents of ChildTypeA (rolled up
> by parent) and I've tried the following approaches
>
>
>
ng to get facet counts on documents of ChildTypeA (rolled up
by parent) and I've tried the following approaches
- Tried Block Join Faceting using the JSON API i.e. using the
unique(_root_) approach.
- Enabled docValues on _root_
- *This did not scale well*
- Tried usin
Hi,
Regarding the Multi Select Faceting, there is a feature whereby we can have
a single filter tagged with multiple tags, like the following example:
fq={!tag=tag1,tag2,tag3}my_field:my_filter
However, I have not been able to figure out the use and advantage of this.
Anyone has any information
q=*:*&fq={!parent which="doc_type:parent"}+doc_type:child -child_color:*
Make sure that + isn;t grabbed by url encoding.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 8:23 AM sagandhi wrote:
> Hi Mikhail,
>
> Thank you for suggesting to use json facet. I tried json.facet, it works
> great and I am able to make a si
Hi Mikhail,
Thank you for suggesting to use json facet. I tried json.facet, it works
great and I am able to make a single query instead of two. Now I am planning
to get rid of the duplicate child fields in parent docs. However I ran into
problems while forming negative queries with block join.
He
query to get the child facets.
> > However this has impacted performance and is not scalable if the
> child_ids
> > I get are huge. Is there a way to combine the two queries using block
> join.
> > I tried this query -
> > q=*:* &fq=user:sagandhi &fq={!parent
>
d from the first query and
> feed it into the second query to get the child facets.
> However this has impacted performance and is not scalable if the child_ids
> I get are huge. Is there a way to combine the two queries using block join.
> I tried this query -
> q=*:* &fq=use
ce and is not scalable if the child_ids
I get are huge. Is there a way to combine the two queries using block join.
I tried this query -
q=*:* &fq=user:sagandhi &fq={!parent
which="doc_type:parent"}color:blue&facet.field=type&child.facet.field=code
I g
Absence of error is a bug for me. The problem is that eff is doubles not
strings with ordinals. It would be possible after
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10528
Now you can try to create several type:query subfacets passing either
{!frange} or just plain Lucene query (there is a slight c
Is it possible to facet over ExternalFileField values?
If I have this in my schema.xml:
And request the following facet:
facet={
"age": {
"field": "eff_age",
"type": "terms",
"limit": 10
}
}
It returns an empty list of buckets.
First, it doesn't throw an err
On 5/2/2018 2:56 PM, Weffelmeyer, Stacie wrote:
> Question on faceting. We have a dynamicField that we want to facet
> on. Below is the field and the type of information that field generates.
>
>
>
> cid:image001.png@01D3E22D.DE028870
>
This image is not available. T
1 - 100 of 1339 matches
Mail list logo
