Aloke, It may be best to simply run a query to populate the suggestion list. While not as fast as the terms component (and suggester offshoots) it can still be tuned to be very, very fast.
In this way, you can generate any fq/q combination required to meet your needs. You can play with wildcard searches, or better yet NGram (EdgeNGram) behavior to get the right suggestion data back. I would suggest an additional core to accomplish this (fed via replication) to avoid cache entry collision with your normal queries. Hope that's useful to you. Jason On Jun 12, 2013, at 7:43 AM, Aloke Ghoshal <alghos...@gmail.com> wrote: > Barani - the fq option doesn't work. > Jason - the dynamic field option won't work due to the high number of > groups and users. > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:12 AM, Jason Hellman < > jhell...@innoventsolutions.com> wrote: > >> Aloke, >> >> If you do not have a factorial problem in the combination of userid and >> groupid (which I can imagine you might) you could consider creating a field >> for each combination (u1g1, u2g2) which can easily be done via dynamic >> fields. Use CopyField to get data into these various constructs (again, >> easily configured via wildcard patterns) and then send the suggestion query >> to the right field. >> >> Obviously this will get out of hand if you have too many of these...so >> this has limits. >> >> Jason >> >> On Jun 11, 2013, at 8:29 AM, Aloke Ghoshal <alghos...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Trying to find a way to filter down the suggested terms set based on the >>> term value of another indexed field? >>> >>> Let's say we have the following documents indexed in Solr: >>> userid:1, groupid:1, content:"alpha beta gamma" >>> userid:2, groupid:1, content:"alternate better garden" >>> userid:3, groupid:2, content:"altruism bent garner" >>> >>> Now a query on (with a dictionary built using terms in the content >> field): >>> q:groupid:1 AND content:al >>> >>> should suggest alpha & alternate, (not altruism, since it has a different >>> groupid). >>> >>> The option to have a separate dictionary per group gets ruled out due to >>> the high number of distinct groups (50K+). >>> >>> Kindly suggest ways to get this working. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Aloke >> >>
