Lets try to make clear some point : Index TO : is the one you are using to call the select request handler Index From : Tags Is titleNormalized present in the "Tags" index ? Because there is where the query will run.
The documents in tags satisfying the query will be joined with the index TO . The resulting documents can be filtered and faceted. I did use this approach a lot of times. And I can tell you it is working in this way. Maybe you misunderstood the Join feature, or I misunderstood your requirement. Cheers 2015-06-04 13:27 GMT+01:00 Robust Links <pey...@robustlinks.com>: > try it for yourself and see if it works Alessandro. Not only cant i get > facets but i even get field errors when i run such join queries > > select?fl=title&q={!join from=id to=id fromIndex=Tags}titleNormalized:pdf > > <lst name="error"> > <str name="msg">undefined field titleNormalized</str> > <int name="code">400</int> > </lst> > > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Alessandro Benedetti < > benedetti.ale...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Rob, > > Reading your use case I can not understand why the Query Time join is > not a > > fit for you ! > > The documents returned by the Query Time Join will be from core1, so > > faceting and filter querying that core, would definitely be possible ! > > I can not see your problem honestly ! > > > > Cheers > > > > 2015-06-04 1:47 GMT+01:00 Robust Links <pey...@robustlinks.com>: > > > > > that doesnt work either, and even if it did, joining is not going to > be a > > > solution since i cant query 1 core and facet on the result of the > other. > > To > > > sum up, my problem is > > > > > > core0 > > > -------- > > > field:id > > > field: text > > > > > > core1 > > > -------- > > > field:id > > > field tag > > > > > > > > > I want to > > > > > > 1) query text field of core0, > > > 2) use the {id} of matches (which can be >>10K) to retrieve the docs in > > > core 1 with same id and > > > 3) facet on tags in core1 > > > > > > Is this possible without denormalizing (which is not an option)? > > > > > > thank you > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Jack Krupansky < > jack.krupan...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Specify the join query parser for the main query. See: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Other+Parsers#OtherParsers-JoinQueryParser > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Jack Krupansky > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Robust Links <pey...@robustlinks.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Erick > > > > > > > > > > they are on the same JVM. I had already tried the core join > strategy > > > but > > > > > that doesnt solve the faceting problem... i.e if i have 2 cores, > > core0 > > > > and > > > > > core1, and I run this query on core0 > > > > > > > > > > /select?&q=<QUERY>fq={!join from=id1 to=id2 > > > > > fromIndex=core1}&facet=true&facet.field=tag > > > > > > > > > > has 2 problems > > > > > 1) i need to specify the docIDs with the fq (so back to the same > > > > > fq={!terms} problem), and > > > > > 2) faceting doesnt work > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Flattening the data is not possible due to security reasons. > > > > > > > > > > Am I using join correctly? > > > > > > > > > > thank you Erick > > > > > > > > > > Peyman > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Erick Erickson < > > > erickerick...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Are these indexes on different machines? Because if they're in > the > > > > > > same JVM, you might be able to use cross-core joins. Be aware, > > > though, > > > > > > that joining on high-cardinality fields (which, by definition, > > docID > > > > > > probably is) is where pseudo joins perform worst. > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you considered flattening the data and including whatever > > > > > > information you have in your "from" index in your main index? > > Because > > > > > > < 100ms response is probably not going to be tough if you have to > > > have > > > > > > two indexes/cores. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Erick > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Joel Bernstein < > > joels...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > You may have to do something custom to meet your needs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 10,000 DocID's is not huge but you're latency requirement are > > > pretty > > > > > low. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are your DocID's by any chance integers? This can make custom > > > > > PostFilters > > > > > > > run much faster. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You should also be aware of the Streaming API in Solr 5.1 which > > > will > > > > > give > > > > > > > you fast Map/Reduce approaches ( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-streaming-api-solrjio-basics.html > > > > > > ). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Joel Bernstein > > > > > > > http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Robust Links < > > > pey...@robustlinks.com > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hey Joel > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> see below > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Joel Bernstein < > > > joels...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > A few questions for you: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > How large can the list of filtering ID's be? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> 10k > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > What's your expectation on latency? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> 10> latency <100 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > What version of Solr are you using? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> 5.0.0 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > SolrCloud or not? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> not > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Joel Bernstein > > > > > > >> > http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Robust Links < > > > > > pey...@robustlinks.com> > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Hi > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > I have a set of document IDs from one core and i want to > > query > > > > > > another > > > > > > >> > core > > > > > > >> > > using the ids retrieved from the first core...the > constraint > > > is > > > > > that > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > > size of doc ID set can be very large. I want to: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > 1) retrieve these docs from the 2nd index > > > > > > >> > > 2) facet on the results > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > I can think of 3 solutions: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > 1) boolean query > > > > > > >> > > 2) terms fq > > > > > > >> > > 3) use a DB rather than Solr > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > I am trying to keep latencies down so prefer to not use > (3). > > > The > > > > > > >> problem > > > > > > >> > > with (1) is maxBooleanclauses is hardwired and I am not > sure > > > > when > > > > > I > > > > > > >> will > > > > > > >> > > hit the exception. Option (2) seems to also hit limits.. > so > > > if I > > > > > do > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > select?fl=*&q=*:*&facet=true&facet.field=title&fq={!terms > > > > > > >> > > f=id}<LONG_LIST_OF_IDS> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > solr just goes blank. I have tried adding cost=200 to try > to > > > run > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > query > > > > > > >> > > first fq={!terms f=id cost=200} but still no good. Paging > on > > > doc > > > > > IDs > > > > > > >> > could > > > > > > >> > > be a solution but the problem then is that the faceting > > > results > > > > > > >> > correspond > > > > > > >> > > to the paged IDs and not the global set. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > My filter cache spec is as follows > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > <filterCache class="solr.FastLRUCache" > > > > > > >> > > size="1000000" > > > > > > >> > > initialSize="1000000" > > > > > > >> > > autowarmCount="100000"/> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > What would be the best way for me to solve this problem? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > thank you > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -------------------------- > > > > Benedetti Alessandro > > Visiting card : http://about.me/alessandro_benedetti > > > > "Tyger, tyger burning bright > > In the forests of the night, > > What immortal hand or eye > > Could frame thy fearful symmetry?" > > > > William Blake - Songs of Experience -1794 England > > > -- -------------------------- Benedetti Alessandro Visiting card : http://about.me/alessandro_benedetti "Tyger, tyger burning bright In the forests of the night, What immortal hand or eye Could frame thy fearful symmetry?" William Blake - Songs of Experience -1794 England