Hi Mikhail, You're right, I should file an issue for the doc thing, I'll look into it.
Thanks for pointing me towards parsing the _nest_path_ field. It's exactly what ChildDocTransformer does, indeed. Would you by any chance know why [child] and [subquery] can't be combined? They don't look too related to me and I can't seem to find any logical reason why they couldn't coexist in the same query. b. On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:08 PM Mikhail Khludnev <m...@apache.org> wrote: > Hello, Bram. > > I guess [child] was recently extended. Docs might be outdated, don't > hesitate to contribute doc improvement. > [subquery] is a neat thing, it's just queries without relying on particular > use case, if my understanding is right one may request something like > _path_ field in [subquery], which may let to reconstruct hierarchy. > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:36 PM Bram Biesbrouck < > bram.biesbro...@reinvention.be> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I'm diving deep into the ChildDocTransformer and its > > related SubQueryAugmenter. > > > > First of all, I think there's a bug in the Solr docs about [child]. It > > states: > > "This transformer returns all descendant documents of each parent > document > > matching your query in a flat list nested inside the matching parent > > document." > > This is not exact: the descendant documents are "wired into" the parent, > > creating a hierarchical structure (which is nice). Or am I > misinterpreting > > the docs? > > > > Secondly, the [subquery] transformer is super powerful and awesome, but > it > > doesn't like to be combined with [child]? I'm getting a "[subquery] name > > children is duplicated" error. Is there a way to work around this? Or > maybe > > better: is there a way to make the [subquery] transformer behave like (a > > more flexible version of) [child]? Because now, the path information (how > > the children relate to their parent fields) is lost when using > [subquery]. > > > > Hope to hear more! > > > > b. > > > > > -- > Sincerely yours > Mikhail Khludnev >
