Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jason.rutherglen@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.212.48 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=ek+9c00eKYQL2YqgAggtNbbp0EEaBPt202j1BABqaQ1T61dKNmnm2N1/DPkVbJGyxq
         +eLcNd1TUkRjrv5f0WUCa8aeSMc5TfzFUNyMrj+LSb+Z05uspm2Yp7XtAW3576a6YZ/W
         CRlvfLGRqM5PgB77hFREmQIy7QczbepgX2NYg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinwPzLto63C5t3qcwYtSNsR3J_tEA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTikbv13gbKdQkCStOJtueiSbEFpgGA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=H_9GQj9jk25Ts7sui2D-yLe_gRg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTikiEJTaJxGDoL_8t4A+UP9S1K0VQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinwPzLto63C5t3qcwYtSNsR3J_tEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:08:22 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTikPWPLRoUY5_hL_9_VsZZVzX6UeYA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lucene Facet path
From: Jason Rutherglen <jason.rutherglen@gmail.com>
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Cc: simon.willnauer@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Martijn, If the title is correct "Post grouping faceting" then maybe
the bit set based system should be a separate issue?  Eg, is there a
bit set implementation today in LUCENE-3079?

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Martijn v Groningen
<martijn.is.hier@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is already an issue open for this:
> LUCENE-3079
>
> As the issues describes, the faceting in Solr relies on the schema (and o=
ff
> course the UIF).
> So having the noting of a FieldType in the facet module would be very
> helpful for selecting the right facet implementation.
> Currently in Solr there is only one facet method for field facet that wor=
k
> per-segment,
> but I think in the end we would want all facet types and methods to work =
on
> a per-segment basis.
> Martijn
> On 13 June 2011 23:47, Jason Rutherglen <jason.rutherglen@gmail.com> wrot=
e:
>>
>> I think it's a better approach than rewriting Solr's internals. =A0Eg,
>> small development steps could be taken, using the knowledge learned
>> from Solr's facet system. =A0Eg, caching and intersecting bit sets would
>> be an easy-ish first step?
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Simon Willnauer
>> <simon.willnauer@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > I believe people are already looking into that but I am not sure.
>> > sounds reasonable to me but I think its going to be lots of work
>> >
>> > simon
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Jason Rutherglen
>> > <jason.rutherglen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Are we going the direction of creating full facet features outside of
>> >> Solr? =A0Eg, we have UIF extrapolated out, we can probably make a mod=
ule
>> >> for bit set intersections as well. =A0In the process the faceting wil=
l
>> >> go per-segment.
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org