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