Thanks Michael,
I agree - JSON Facets is a better candidate for the functionality I'm
looking for. In my case specifically though, I think I'm pegged to
traditional facets because I also want to use the "terms" local params
support that doesn't have a native equivalent in JSON Faceting (yet:
SOLR-14921).
If no one has other ideas here, maybe my best bet is to switch to
using JSON Faceting and adding an explicit "{!terms}" query as a
filter. I see you suggested that as a workaround here [1].
Jason
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-dev/202010.mbox/%3CCAF%3DheHGKwGtvq%3DgAndmVrgvo1cxKmzP0neGi17_eoVhubpaBZA%40mail.gmail.com%3E
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 10:02 AM Michael Gibney
<mich...@michaelgibney.net> wrote:
>
> Answering a slightly different question perhaps, but you can
> definitely do this with the "JSON Facet" API, where there's much
> cleaner separation between different facets (and output is assigned to
> arbitrary keys).
> Michael
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 9:36 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowsk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Is it possible to have multiple facets on the same field with
> > different parameters (mincount, limit, prefix, etc.) on each?
> >
> > The ref-guide describes these per-facet parameters as being settable
> > on a "per-field basis" with syntax of
> > "f.<fieldname>.facet.<parameter>" [1]. But I wasn't sure whether to
> > take that at face value, or hope that the "<fieldname>" value there
> > could be something more flexible (like the value of facet.field which
> > can take local params).
> >
> > I've been trying variations of
> > "facet=true&facet.field=f1&f.f1.facet.mincount=5&facet.field={!key=someOutputKey}f1",
> > but without luck. "mincount" is always applied to both of the
> > facet.field's being computed.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Jason
