Good to know, thank you. From an implementation standpoint that makes a lot of sense. We are only using facets of type 'term' for now and for those it works nicely. Our usual searches carry around 8-12 facets so we are covered from that side :-)
-----Original Message----- From: Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerick...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 3:12 PM To: solr-user <solr-user@lucene.apache.org> Subject: Re: JSON facets and excluded queries Do note that the number of threads also won't help much last I knew unless you are faceting over that many fields too. I.e. setting this to 5 while faceting on only 1 field won't help. And it's not implemented for all facet types IIRC. Best, Erick On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Aigner, Max <max.aig...@nordstrom.com> wrote: > Answering one question myself after doing some testing on 5.3.1: > > Yes, facet.threads is still relevant with Json facets. > > We are seeing significant gains as we are increasing the number of threads > from 1 up to 4. Beyond that we only observed marginal improvements -- which > makes sense because the test VM has 4 cores. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Aigner, Max [mailto:max.aig...@nordstrom.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 12:33 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: RE: JSON facets and excluded queries > > Another question popped up around this: > Is the facet.threads parameter still relevant with Json facets? I saw that > the facet prefix bug https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6686 got > fixed in 5.3 so I'm looking into re-enabling this parameter for our searches. > > On a side note, I've been testing Json facet performance and I've observed > that they're generally faster unless facet prefix filtering comes into play, > then they seem to be slower than standard facets. > Is that just a fluke or should I switch to Json Query Facets instead of using > facet prefix filtering? > > Thanks again, > Max > > -----Original Message----- > From: Aigner, Max [mailto:max.aig...@nordstrom.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 11:54 AM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: RE: JSON facets and excluded queries > > Yes, just tried that and it works fine. > > That just removed a showstopper for me as my queries contain lots of tagged > FQs and multi-select facets (implemented the 'good way' :). > > Thank you for the quick help! > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yonik Seeley [mailto:ysee...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 11:38 AM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: JSON facets and excluded queries > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Yonik Seeley <ysee...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Aigner, Max <max.aig...@nordstrom.com> >> wrote: >>> Thanks, this is great :=)) >>> >>> I hadn't seen the domain:{excludeTags:...} syntax yet and it doesn't seem >>> to be working on 5.3.1 so I'm assuming this is work slated for 5.4 or 6. >>> Did I get that right? >> >> Hmmm, the "domain" keyword was added for 5.3 along with block join >> faceting: http://yonik.com/solr-nested-objects/ >> That's when I switched "excludeTags" to also be under the "domain" keyword. >> >> Let me try it out... > > Ah, I messed up that migration... > OK, for now, instead of > domain:{excludeTags:foo} > just use > excludeTags:foo > and it should work. > > -Yonik
