> > The patch which will be committed soon will add this functionality.
Where can I follow the progress of this patch? On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Uri Boness <ubon...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Great. Nice site and very similar to my requirements. >> > thanks. > > So, right now, you get all field values by default? >> > Right now, no field values are returned for the collapsed documents. The > patch which will be committed soon will add this functionality. > > > R. Tan wrote: > >> Great. Nice site and very similar to my requirements. >> >> >> >>> There's work on the patch that is being done now which will enable you to >>> ask for specific field values of the collapsed documents using a >>> dedicated >>> request parameter. >>> >>> >> >> >> So, right now, you get all field values by default? >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Uri Boness <ubon...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> You can check out http://www.ilocal.nl. If you search for a bank in >>> Amsterdam then you'll see that a lot of the results are collapsed. For >>> this >>> we used an older version of this patch (which works on 1.3) but a lot has >>> changed since then. We're currently using this patch on another project, >>> but >>> it's not live yet. >>> >>> >>> Uri >>> >>> R. Tan wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Thanks Uri. Your personal suggestion is appreciated and I think I'll >>>> follow >>>> your advice. We're still early in development and 1.4 would be a good >>>> choice. I hope I can get field collapsing to work with my requirements. >>>> Do >>>> you know any live site using field collapsing already? >>>> >>>> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Uri Boness <ubon...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> There's work on the patch that is being done now which will enable you >>>>> to >>>>> ask for specific field values of the collapsed documents using a >>>>> dedicated >>>>> request parameter. This work is not committed yet to the latest patch, >>>>> but >>>>> will be very soon. There is of course a drawback to that as well, the >>>>> collapsed documents set can be very large (depends on your data of >>>>> course) >>>>> in which case the returned result which includes the fields values can >>>>> be >>>>> rather large, which will impact performance, this is why this feature >>>>> will >>>>> be enabled only if you specify this extra parameter - by default no >>>>> field >>>>> values will be returned. >>>>> >>>>> AFAIK, the latest patch should work fine with the latest build. Martijn >>>>> (which is the main maintainer of this patch) tries to keep it up to >>>>> date >>>>> with the latest builds. But I guess the safest way is to work with the >>>>> nightly build of the same date as the latest patch (though I would give >>>>> it a >>>>> try first with the latest build). >>>>> >>>>> BTW, it's not an official suggestion from the Solr development team, >>>>> but >>>>> if >>>>> you ask me, if you have to choose now whether to use 1.3 or 1.4-dev, I >>>>> would >>>>> go for the later. 1.4 is supposed to be released in the upcoming week >>>>> or >>>>> two >>>>> and it bring loads of bug fixes, enhancements and extra functionality. >>>>> But >>>>> again, this is my personal suggestion. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> cheers, >>>>> Uri >>>>> >>>>> R. Tan wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Okay. Thanks for giving an insight on how it works in general. Without >>>>>> trying it myself, are the field values for the collapsed ones also >>>>>> part >>>>>> of >>>>>> the results data? >>>>>> What is the latest build that is safe to use on a production >>>>>> environment? >>>>>> I'd probably go for that and use field collapsing. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you very much. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Uri Boness <ubon...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> The collapsed documents are represented by one "master" document >>>>>>> which >>>>>>> can >>>>>>> be part of the normal search result (the doc list), so pagination >>>>>>> just >>>>>>> works >>>>>>> as expected, meaning taking only the returned documents in account >>>>>>> (ignoring >>>>>>> the collapsed ones). As for the scoring, the "master" document is >>>>>>> actually >>>>>>> the document with the highest score in the collapsed group. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As for Solr 1.3 compatibility... well... it's very hart to tell. All >>>>>>> latest >>>>>>> patch are certainly *not* 1.3 compatible (I think they're also >>>>>>> depending >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> some changes in lucene which are not available for solr 1.3). I guess >>>>>>> you'll >>>>>>> have to try some of the old patches, but I'm not sure about their >>>>>>> stability. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> cheers, >>>>>>> Uri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> R. Tan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks Uri. How does paging and scoring work when using field >>>>>>>> collapsing? >>>>>>>> What patch works with 1.3? Is it production ready? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> R >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Uri Boness <ubon...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The development on this patch is quite active. It works well for >>>>>>>>> single >>>>>>>>> solr instance, but distributed search (ie. shards) is not yet >>>>>>>>> supported. >>>>>>>>> Using this page you can group search results based on a specific >>>>>>>>> field. >>>>>>>>> There are two flavors of field collapsing - adjacent and >>>>>>>>> non-adjacent, >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> former collapses only document which happen to be located next to >>>>>>>>> each >>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>> in the otherwise-non-collapsed results set. The later (the >>>>>>>>> non-adjacent) >>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>> collapses all documents with the same field value (regardless of >>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>> position in the otherwise-non-collapsed results set). Note, that >>>>>>>>> non-adjacent performs better than adjacent one. There's currently >>>>>>>>> discussion >>>>>>>>> to extend this support so in addition to collapsing the documents, >>>>>>>>> extra >>>>>>>>> information will be returned for the collapsed documents (see the >>>>>>>>> discussion >>>>>>>>> on the issue page). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Uri >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> R. Tan wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think this is what I'm looking for. What is the status of this >>>>>>>>>> patch? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:00 PM, R. Tan <tanrihae...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Solrers, >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to get your opinion on how to best approach a search >>>>>>>>>>> requirement that I have. The scenario is I have a set of business >>>>>>>>>>> listings >>>>>>>>>>> that may be group into one parent business (such as 7-eleven >>>>>>>>>>> having >>>>>>>>>>> several >>>>>>>>>>> locations). On the results page, I only want 7-eleven to show up >>>>>>>>>>> once >>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>> also show how many locations matched the query (facet filtered by >>>>>>>>>>> state, >>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>> example) and maybe a preview of the some of the locations. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Searching for the business name is straightforward but the >>>>>>>>>>> locations >>>>>>>>>>> within >>>>>>>>>>> the a result is quite tricky. I can do the opposite, searching >>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> locations and faceting on business names, but it will still >>>>>>>>>>> basically >>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> same thing and repeat results with the same business name. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Any advice? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> R >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >
