Hi Tracy,

Well, I managed to get it working (I think) but the weird thing is, in the XML output it gives both recordsets (the filtered and unfiltered - filtered second). In the JSON (the one I actually use anyway, at least) I only get the filtered results (as expected).

In my core's solrconfig.xml, I added:

<searchComponent name="collapse" class="org.apache.solr.handler.component.CollapseComponent" />

(I'm not sure if it's supposed to go anywhere in particular but for me it's right before StandardRequestHandler)

and then within StandardRequestHandler:

  <requestHandler name="standard" class="solr.StandardRequestHandler">
    <!-- default values for query parameters -->
     <lst name="defaults">
       <str name="echoParams">explicit</str>
       <!--
       <int name="rows">10</int>
       <str name="fl">*</str>
       <str name="version">2.1</str>
        -->
     </lst>
     <arr name="components">
        <str>query</str>
        <str>facet</str>
        <str>mlt</str>
        <str>highlight</str>
        <str>debug</str>
        <str>collapse</str>
     </arr>
  </requestHandler>


Which is basically all the default values plus collapse. Not sure if this was needed for prior versions, I don't see it in any patch files (I just got a vague idea from looking at a comment from someone else who said it wasn't working for them). It would kinda be nice if someone working on the code might throw us a bone and say explicitly what the right options to put in the config file are (if there are even supposed to be any - for all I know, this is just a bandaid over a larger problem). I know it's not done yet though... just a pointer for this patch might be handy, it's really a useful feature if it works (I was kinda shocked this wasn't part of the standard distribution since it's something I had to do so often with mysql, kinda lucky I guess that it only came up now).

Another issue I'm having now is the faceting doesn't seem to change - even if I set the collapse.facet option to "after"... I should really try "before" and see what happens.

Of course, I just realized the integrity of my collapse field is not so great so I have to go back and redo the data :-)

Best of luck.

--
Steve

On Dec 9, 2008, at 7:49 PM, Tracy Flynn (SOLR) wrote:

Steve,

I need this too. As my previous posting said, I adapted the 1.2 field collapsing back at the beginning of the year, so I'm somewhat familiar.

I'll try and get a look this weekend. It's the earliest I''m likely to get spare cycles. I'll post any results.

Tracy

On Dec 9, 2008, at 4:18 PM, Stephen Weiss wrote:

Hi,

I'm trying to use field collapsing with our SOLR but I just can't seem to get it to do anything.

I've downloaded a dist copy of solr 1.3 and applied Ivan de Prado's patch - reading through the source code, the patch definitely was applied successfully (all the changes are in the right places, I've checked every single one).

I've run ant clean, ant compile, and ant dist to produce the war file in the dist/ folder, and then put the war file in place and restarted jetty. According to the logs, jetty is definitely loading the right war file. If I expand the war file and grep through the files, it would appear the collapsing code is there.

However, when I add any sort of collapse parameters (I've tried any combination of collapse=true collapse.field=link_id collapse.threshold=1 collapse.type=normal collapse.info.doc=true), the result set is no different from normal query, and there is no collapse data returned in the XML.

I'm not a java developer, this is my first time using ant period, and I'm just following basic directions I found on google.


Here is the output of the compilation process:



I really need this patch to work for a project... Can someone please tell me what I'm missing to get this to work? I can't really find any documentation beyond adding the collapse options to the query string, so it's hard to tell - is there an option in solrconfig.xml or in the core configuration that needs to be set? Am I going about this entirely the wrong way?

Thanks for any advice, I appreciate it.

[ sorry if you get this twice, I accidentally sent first from the wrong e-mail address and I don't think it went through ]

--
Steve


Reply via email to