That should work... what version of Solr are you using? Did you change the type of the popularity field w/o completely reindexing?
You can try to verify the number of documents in each bucket that have the popularity field by adding another sub-facet next to cat_pop: num_pop:{query:"popularity:[* TO *]"} > A quick check with this json.facet parameter: > > json.facet: {cat_pop:"sum(popularity)“} > > returns: > > "facets“: { > "count":2508, > "cat_pop":21.0}, That looks like a pretty low sum for all those documents.... perhaps most of them are missing "popularity" (or have a 0 popularity). To test one of the buckets at the top-level this way, you could add fq=shop_cat:"Men > Clothing > Jumpers & Cardigans" and see if you get anything. -Yonik On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 12:46 PM, CA <c...@it-agenten.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > this is about using a function in nested facets, specifically the „sum()“ > function inside a „terms“ facet using the json.facet api. > > My json.facet parameter looks like this: > > json.facet={shop_cat: {type:terms, field:shop_cat, facet: > {cat_pop:"sum(popularity)"}}} > > A snippet of the result: > > "facets“: { > "count":2508, > "shop_cat“: { > "buckets“: [{ > "val“: "Men > Clothing > Jumpers & Cardigans", > "count":252, > "cat_pop“:0.0 > }, { > "val":"Men > Clothing > Jackets & Coats", > "count":157, > "cat_pop“:0.0 > }, // and more > > This looks fine all over but it turns out that „cat_pop“, the result of > „sum(popularity)“ is always 0.0 even if the documents for this facet value > have popularities > 0. > > A quick check with this json.facet parameter: > > json.facet: {cat_pop:"sum(popularity)“} > > returns: > > "facets“: { > "count":2508, > "cat_pop":21.0}, > > To me, it seems it works fine on the base level but not when nested. Still, > Yonik’s documentation and the Jira issues indicate that it is possible to use > functions in nested facets so I might just be using the wrong structure? I > have a hard time finding any other examples on the i-net and I had no luck > changing the structure around. > Could someone shed some light on this for me? It would also help to know if > it is not possible to sum the values up this way. > > Thanks a lot! > Chantal > >