I'd call it related (their application in search encourages exploration), but also distinct enough to never mix them up. I think your assessment below is correct, although I'm not familiar with the details of Carrot2 any more (was once), so I can't tell you exactly which algo is used under the hood.
Otis -- Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch ----- Original Message ---- > From: Michael Ludwig <m...@as-guides.com> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 9:41:54 AM > Subject: Re: Faceting on text fields > > Otis Gospodnetic schrieb: > > > > Solr can already cluster top N hits using Carrot2: > > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/ClusteringComponent > > Would it be fair to say that clustering as detailed on the page you're > referring to is a kind of dynamic faceting? The faceting not being done > based on distinct values of certain fields, but on the presence (and > frequency) of terms in one field? > > The main difference seems to be that with faceting, grouping criteria > (facets) are known beforehand, while with clustering, grouping criteria > (the significant terms which create clusters - the cluster keys) have > yet to be determined. Is that a correct assessment? > > Michael Ludwig
