If you don't want the facets sorted by decreasing count (the default),
you can specify
facet.sort=index
to get index order ((lexicographic by indexed term)
-Yonik
http://heliosearch.com -- making solr shine
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 2:08 PM, MC videm...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Here is a public
Thanks for help, Alexandre.
It worked as you described.
I have other question. Suppose I have product catalogue that has many sub
categories, each one has different group of fields.
When a user search the catalogue, we should show corresponding facet fields
on left based on result set. That
Facets work on the tokenized content of the field. You must be using
text_en or similar type. Switch the facet field to use String. If you are
using eDisMax and want to be able to search it for substrings (e.g. if
somebody searches for Intel), use copyField to create two fields, one for
searching,
Here is another simpler example of what I am trying to achieve:
Multi-Valued Field 1:
Data 1
Data 2
Data 3
Data 4
Multi-Valued Field 2:
Data 11
Data 12
Data 13
Data 14
Multi-Valued Field 3:
Data 21
Data 22
Data 23
Data 24
How can I specify that Data 1,Data 11 and data 21 are all related? And
What do you want the results to be, persons? And the facets should be
interests or subinterests? Why are there two layers of interests anyway? Can
there my many subinterests under one interest? Is one of those two a name of
the interest which would look nice as a facet?
Anyway, have you
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 03:58:29PM -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
I know you mean well and are probably wondering what to do next [...]
Still, a short heads-up like Johnson's would seem OK?
After all, this is of concern to us all.
Regards
-- tomás
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Tomas Zerolo
tomas.zer...@axelspringer.de wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 03:58:29PM -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
I know you mean well and are probably wondering what to do next [...]
Still, a short heads-up like Johnson's would seem OK?
After all, this is of
Le 17 août 2011 à 13:01, Robert Muir a écrit :
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 03:58:29PM -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
I know you mean well and are probably wondering what to do next [...]
Still, a short heads-up like Johnson's would seem OK?
After all, this is of concern to us all.
nothing to
Paul Libbrecht-4 wrote:
Robert,
I believe, precisely, the objective of such a thread is to be helped by
knowledgeable techies into being able to do what you say.
If Johnson gave only 3 lines of details, such as claimed patent URLs or
dates, we might easily be able to tell him the
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, LaMaze Johnson lam...@zesco.com wrote:
Paul Libbrecht-4 wrote:
Robert,
I believe, precisely, the objective of such a thread is to be helped by
knowledgeable techies into being able to do what you say.
If Johnson gave only 3 lines of details, such
I have no plan to look at the patents, but there is some serious prior art in
faceted search. First, faceted classification for libraries was invented by S.
R. Ranganathan in 1933. Computer search for libraries dates from the 1960's,
probably. Combining the two is obvious, even back then.
patent rights only last 17 years then it is public domain.
On 08/17/2011 11:05 AM, Walter Underwood wrote:
I have no plan to look at the patents, but there is some serious prior art in
faceted search. First, faceted classification for libraries was invented by S.
R. Ranganathan in 1933.
Hi,
Sorry for the top-quote: On a
mobile.
A discussion on the evils of
patents aside, shirley library
catalogues are prior art. I
remember such systems giving
lists of matches by category, if
maybe not counts.
Will look at the patent applications, but sheesh,
what a waste of time and resources.
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 12:03 AM, LaMaze Johnson lam...@zesco.com wrote:
[...]
Just thought I would make others aware of this. I'd appreciate any insight
others might have regarding the issue.
[...]
If you will permit me a moment of levity, from the perspective of
someone in India, I would
Gora Mohanty-3 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 12:03 AM, LaMaze Johnson lt;lam...@zesco.comgt;
wrote:
[...]
Just thought I would make others aware of this. I'd appreciate any
insight
others might have regarding the issue.
[...]
If you will permit me a moment of levity, from the
I know you mean well and are probably wondering what to do next, but such a
discussion is really beyond the scope of this mailing list. Most of us aren't
lawyers (I wonder if anyone here is?) and if we were, we wouldn't likely
speculate in public on something that can only be decided in the
Grant Ingersoll-2 wrote:
I know you mean well and are probably wondering what to do next, but such
a discussion is really beyond the scope of this mailing list. Most of us
aren't lawyers (I wonder if anyone here is?) and if we were, we wouldn't
likely speculate in public on something that
While I agree with Grant we shouldn't engage on a legal discussion, it may be
worth that this thread shares a few dates of when faceted search was used in
the old times...
paul
Le 16 août 2011 à 22:02, LaMaze Johnson a écrit :
Grant Ingersoll-2 wrote:
I know you mean well and are
I am sorry for raising up this thread after 6 months.
But we have still problems with faceted search on full-text fields.
We try to get most frequent words in a text field that is created in 1 hour.
The faceted search takes too much time even the matching number of documents
(created_at within 1
Another thing you can try is trunk. This specific case has been
improved by an order of magnitude recenty.
The case that has been sped up is initial population of the
filterCache, or when the filterCache can't hold all of the unique
values, or when faceting is configured to not use the
You'd probably need to do some post processing on the pages and set up rules
for each website to grab that specific bit of data. You could load the html
into an xml parser, then use xpath to grab content from a particular tag with a
class or id, based on the particular website
-Original
Sent: Wed, July 21, 2010 8:42:55 AM
Subject: RE: faceted search with job title
You'd probably need to do some post processing on the pages and set up rules
for
each website to grab that specific bit of data. You could load the html into an
xml parser, then use xpath to grab content from
-Kallin Nagelberg
-Original Message-
From: Savannah Beckett [mailto:savannah_becket...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 12:20 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: dave.sea...@magicalia.com
Subject: Re: faceted search with job title
mmm...there must be better way...each job
code. But
is regex pattern flexible enough for all job boards?
Thanks.
From: Nagelberg, Kallin knagelb...@globeandmail.com
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Wed, July 21, 2010 10:39:32 AM
Subject: RE: faceted search with job
21, 2010 10:39:32 AM
Subject: RE: faceted search with job title
Yeah you should definitely just setup a custom parser for each site.. should
be
easy to extract title using groovy's xml parsing along with tagsoup for
sloppy
html. If you can't find the pattern for each site leading
Did you trying paging them?
-Original Message-
From: olivier sallou [mailto:olivier.sal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 2:04 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Faceted search outofmemory
Hi,
I try to make a faceted search on a very large index (around 200GB with
How do make paging over facets?
2010/6/29 Ankit Bhatnagar abhatna...@vantage.com
Did you trying paging them?
-Original Message-
From: olivier sallou [mailto:olivier.sal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 2:04 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Faceted search
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SimpleFacetParameters#facet.limit
-Original message-
From: olivier sallou olivier.sal...@gmail.com
Sent: Tue 29-06-2010 20:11
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org;
Subject: Re: Faceted search outofmemory
How do make paging over facets?
2010/6/29 Ankit Bhatnagar
I have given 6G to Tomcat. Using facet.method=enum and facet.limit seems to
fix the issue with a few tests, but I do know that it is not a final
solution. Will work under certain configurations.
Real issue is to be able to know what is the required RAM for an index...
2010/6/29 Nagelberg, Kallin
There is memory used for each facet. All of the facets are loaded for
any facet query. Your best shot is to limit the number of facets.
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:42 AM, olivier sallou
olivier.sal...@gmail.com wrote:
I have given 6G to Tomcat. Using facet.method=enum and facet.limit seems to
the facet
counts of all 1M of facet terms, or did you limit the number of facet terms
returned to a small number?
Also did your entire index fit within RAM?
--- On Sat, 6/5/10, Furkan Kuru furkank...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Furkan Kuru furkank...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Faceted Search Slows Down
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Furkan Kuru furkank...@gmail.com wrote:
facet.limit = default value 100
facet.minCount is 1
The document count that matches the query is 8-10K in average. I did not
calculate the terms (maybe using using facet.limit=-1 and facet.minCount=1)
My index entirely
We try to provide real-time search. So the index is changing almost in every
minute.
We commit for every 100 documents received.
The facet search is executed every 5 mins.
Here is the stats result after facet search with normal facet.method=fc (it
took 95 seconds)
*name: * fieldValueCache
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Furkan Kuru furkank...@gmail.com wrote:
We try to provide real-time search. So the index is changing almost in every
minute.
We commit for every 100 documents received.
The facet search is executed every 5 mins.
OK, that's the problem - pretty much every
Using the Zoie/Bobo combination gives you realtime faceting. (Lucene based)
http://sna-projects.com/zoie/
http://sna-projects.com/bobo/
wiki write-up:
http://snaprojects.jira.com/wiki/display/BOBO/Realtime+Faceting+with+Zoie
We can take this over to the zoie/bobo mailing list if you have
Ok, I will have a look at distributed search, multi-core solr solution.
Thank you Yonik,
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.comwrote:
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Furkan Kuru furkank...@gmail.com wrote:
We try to provide real-time search. So the index is
strategy still work in this case? If
not, is there any other way to mitigate the cache re-building problem of facet
search?
--- On Sun, 6/6/10, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
From: Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.com
Subject: Re: Faceted Search Slows Down as index gets
The documents full-text fields are 140 chars length (tweets).
Actually I had looked at those parameters and thought no change was
neccessary because the terms per document would be few and the unique term
count was nearly 1 M. I don't know exactly but average term count per
document text can be
Faceting on a full-text field is hard.
What version of Solr are you using?
If it's 1.4 or later, try setting
facet.method=enum
And to use the filterCache less, try
facet.enum.cache.minDf=100
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Furkan Kuru
I am using 1.4 version.
I have tried your suggestion,
it takes around 25-30 seconds now.
Thank you,
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.comwrote:
Faceting on a full-text field is hard.
What version of Solr are you using?
If it's 1.4 or later, try setting
#facet.method)
facet.method=fc is faster when a field has many unique terms. So how come enum,
not fc, is faster in this case?
Also why use filterCache less?
Thanks
Andy
--- On Fri, 6/4/10, Furkan Kuru furkank...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Furkan Kuru furkank...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Faceted Search
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Andy angelf...@yahoo.com wrote:
Yonik,
Just curious why does using enum improve the facet performance.
Furkan was faceting on a text field with each word being a facet value. I'd
imagine that'd mean there's a large number of facet values. According to the
Hi,
try
http://localhost:8080/solr/select/?q=YOUR-QUERYfacet=truefacet.field=title
I don't think the bolean fields is mapped to on and off :)
-birger
-Original Message-
From: Ilya Sterin [mailto:ster...@gmail.com]
Sent: 24. mai 2010 23:11
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject:
Hi Birger,
Birger Lie wrote:
I don't think the bolean fields is mapped to on and off :)
You can use true and on interchangeably.
-Sascha
-birger
-Original Message-
From: Ilya Sterin [mailto:ster...@gmail.com]
Sent: 24. mai 2010 23:11
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject:
Is the FacetComponent loaded at all?
requestHandler name=standard class=solr.SearchHandler default=true
arr name=components
strquery/str
strfacet/str
/arr
/requestHandler
On 2010-05-25, at 3:32 AM, Sascha Szott wrote:
Hi Birger,
Birger Lie wrote:
I don't think the bolean
Hi,
please note, that the FacetComponent is one of the six search components
that are automatically associated with solr.SearchHandler (this holds
also for the QueryComponent).
Another note: By using name=components all default components will be
replaced by the components you explicitly
Sascha thanks for the response, here is the output...
?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8?
response
lst name=responseHeader
int name=status0/int
int name=QTime0/int
lst name=params
str name=wtxml/str
str name=qtitle:*/str
str name=fltitle/str
/lst
/lst
result
Ah, the issue was explicitly specifying components...
arr name=components
strquery/str
/arr
I don't remember changing this during default install, commenting this
out enabled faceted search component.
Thanks all for the help.
Ilya
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Sascha Szott sz...@zib.de
Hi Ilya,
Ilya Sterin wrote:
I'm trying to perform a faceted search without any luck. Result set
doesn't return any facet information...
http://localhost:8080/solr/select/?q=title:*facet=onfacet.field=title
I'm getting the result set, but no face information present? Is there
something else
it's probably because your query isn't matching anything. try q=title:
[* TO *], or maybe even simply *:* if you are trying to match all
documents.
Erik
On May 24, 2010, at 5:11 PM, Ilya Sterin wrote:
I'm trying to perform a faceted search without any luck. Result set
doesn't
Hi,
Even I am looking for a solution for this.
case:
Index1: has the meta data and the contents of the files (basically read only
for the end users)
Index2: will have the tags attached to the search results that user may get
out of index1 (so read/write).
so next time when user searches it
: I have 2 indexes with some similar fields and some distinct fields. I need
: to make a faceted search that returns the union of the same search in these
: 2 indexes.
:
: How can I make it?
Assuming you don't need facets or sorting on the fields that are distinct
between the two indexes
Also, here is the field definition in the schema
dynamicField name=*amp;STRING_NOT_ANALYZED_YES type=string
indexed=true stored=true multiValued=true/
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Faceted-Search-on-Dynamic-Fields--tp25612887p25612936.html
Sent from the Solr
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Avlesh Singh avl...@gmail.com wrote:
Faceting, as of now, can only be done of definitive field names.
To further clarify, the fields you can facet on can include those
defined by dynamic fields. You just must specify the exact field name
when you facet.
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Nicolae Mihalachexproma...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I'm using faceted search (perhaps in a dumb way) to collect some statistics
for my index. I have documents in various languages, one of the field is
language and I simply want to see how many documents I have
if you are querying using a http request you can add these two parameters:
facet=true
facet.field=field_for_faceting
and optionally this one to set the max number of facets:
facet.limit=facet_limit
I don't know if it's what you need...
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 6:17 AM, Sajith Weerakoon
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Deo, Shantanu sd1...@att.com wrote:
I have tried playing around with defining the fieldtype using the
following analyzers:
fieldType name=mfgTextTight class=solr.TextField
positionIncrementGap=100
analyzer
tokenizer class=solr.LetterTokenizerFactory/
Shantanu,
It sounds like all you have to do is switch to a field type that doesn't
tokenize your mfg field. Try field type string. You'll need to reindex once
you make this change.
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
- Original Message
From: Deo,
: generating XML feed file and feeding to the Solr server. However, I was
: also looking into implementing having sub-categories within the
: categories if that make sense. For example, in the shopper.com we have
: the categories of by price, manufactures and so on and with in them,they
: are
: Thanks Chris for replying my question. So I'm thinking about using a
: CMS and when somebody publishes a page in CMS, I would generated this
: well structure XML file and feed that xml to Solr to generate the index
: on those data. Then, I can simply do faceted search using the correct
:
Hi Chris,
thank you for the reply. I was reading other posting regarding faceted
search and seems like they are using the filtering capability of Lucene for
that. If that the case, can we have control over the label of categories?
For example: in shopper.com when we search for camera
: define the sub-categories. let's say from the above example, the
: category price has different sub-categories like less than 100
: ,100-200? I'm guessing, we explicit define this in XML feed file, but
: I could be very wrong. In any case, can you please give me the short
: example achieve
Niraj: What environment are you using? SQL Server/.NET/Windows? or something
else?
-Mike
-Original Message-
From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 4:24 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Faceted Search!
: define the sub-categories
-
From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 4:24 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Faceted Search!
: define the sub-categories. let's say from the above example, the
: category price has different sub-categories like less than 100
: ,100-200? I'm
: search for documents. I'm planning to use Nutch to crawl that website
: and use Solr to cluster my search results. I tried integrating Nutch
: with Solr following FooFactory.com's blog ..but I could not follow
: few of the steps as I'm very new to both of them. If anyone of you have
:
Thanks Chris for replying my question. So I'm thinking about using a CMS and
when somebody publishes a page in CMS, I would generated this well structure
XML file and feed that xml to Solr to generate the index on those data. Then, I
can simply do faceted search using the correct Lucene query
: filter.query
: filter.term
: filter.future expansion
: I like self-documenting parameter names, but if there is concern about
: verbosity, how 'bout:
:
: fq
: fq.term
no it's cool ... filter.query and filter.term are definitely better.
: As for future expansion, some possibilities are:
Try surrounding you mutli-word query in quotes: education_facet:High
School. Also do you want to use the filter query param instead
fq=education_facet:High School
-Andrew
-Original Message-
From: Peter McPeterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 4:22 PM
To:
On 2/9/07, Gunther, Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try surrounding you mutli-word query in quotes: education_facet:High
School. Also do you want to use the filter query param instead
fq=education_facet:High School
Hopefully having the client escape simple term filters won't be
necessary in
On Feb 9, 2007, at 4:45 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On 2/9/07, Gunther, Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try surrounding you mutli-word query in quotes: education_facet:High
School. Also do you want to use the filter query param instead
fq=education_facet:High School
Hopefully having the client
: The simplest form would be a term query with no escaping whatsoever:
:
: Something like:
: fq=!term f='education_facet'High School
I know yonik isn't a big fan of query param proliferation, and there's
definitely going to be a need for some kind of markup in the future to
denote which query
ft and fq work for me!
Erik
On Feb 9, 2007, at 5:35 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On 2/9/07, Chris Hostetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: The simplest form would be a term query with no escaping
whatsoever:
:
: Something like:
: fq=!term f='education_facet'High School
I know yonik isn't
Might I suggest:
filter.query
filter.term
filter.future expansion
-Mike
On 2/9/07, Erik Hatcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ft and fq work for me!
Erik
On Feb 9, 2007, at 5:35 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On 2/9/07, Chris Hostetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: The simplest form would be a
: filter.query
: filter.term
: filter.future expansion
there's a whole lot of Unicode letters availble thta could fill in the f_
blank, how much more expansion do we really need? :)
I suppose filter.term is a wise choice, and adding filter.query as an
alias makes sense too ... i'm just a big
On Feb 9, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Mike Klaas wrote:
Might I suggest:
filter.query
filter.term
filter.future expansion
I like it. While Hoss has a point, though descriptive names do make
a lot of sense too. It has been a bit confusing to explain
facet.query and fq as two different things.
On Jan 16, 2007, at 10:05 PM, Peter McPeterson wrote:
Hi all, I'm trying this solr ruby DSL called Flare/solrb and I
don't really know how the faceted search works because I cant add
whatever fields I want to to the index. This is currently not working:
conn =
On Dec 28, 2006, at 10:18 PM, Giri wrote:
Do you have any simple tutorial that explains how to enable the
faceted
search in solr? I wouold appreciate if you point me to some resource.
The wiki is the best source of information on Solr. For facets, look
here:
On 12/27/06, Giri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am currently exploring the possibility of using faceted browsing using
Solr, and got few questions. I am currently indexing some fields that has
more than one value per record or e.g., a field name called metaKeyword,
and the value for this contains
Hi Yonik,
Thanks for the information and suggestion.
Do you have any simple tutorial that explains how to enable the faceted
search in solr? I wouold appreciate if you point me to some resource.
Thanks much
On 12/28/06, Yonik Seeley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/27/06, Giri [EMAIL
79 matches
Mail list logo
