Mailing-List: contact solr-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of yseeley@gmail.com designates
 209.85.220.225 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
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=U/eV1fJ2TcZh2WoQnhtZWBQhuaL/oQ0B/FmUNlydHOboo49f1clLUR2tDR15mlbqPF
         Nd2kPzDDSFk+zoevxaVEKfzUSj+SzRWVLX2qZGBfh3SYr43k85Jfwuh8+KkvKWJpSo+K
         kYnRp2fagnRmSq6cmpXcZk//uochWbzuL58D8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f19741740908201913i63959a08yd9cfa81f7679749e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f19741740908201853y69d33ce4v27416538a1667815@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c68e39170908201909s57b67c31p8bb0144f83c72a53@mail.gmail.com>
	 <f19741740908201913i63959a08yd9cfa81f7679749e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 22:19:17 -0400
Message-ID: <c68e39170908201919p1a217804mc5b857a6eaa08bb8@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Multiple facet.prefix?
From: Yonik Seeley <yseeley@gmail.com>
To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Avlesh Singh<avlesh@gmail.com> wrote:
> Or, may be just multiple facet.prefix values, Yonik; exactly the same as
> facet.field works.

The problem then becomes labels.
facet.field=foo goes under the label "foo"

We already have a mechanism to re-label results, seems like we should use that?

-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com

> Cheers
> Avlesh
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Yonik Seeley <yonik@lucidimagination.com>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Avlesh Singh<avlesh@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Should multiple values for facet.prefix be supported?
>> > I have come across several use-cases on the user mailing list where such
>> a
>> > functionality could have helped (The latest one being -
>> >
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com/search/document/2a9c44d4f015b5e5/facet_filtering
>> ).
>> > I ran into one such use last night.
>> >
>> > Is there a general agreement on the enhancement?
>>
>> Yes, I think it's a good idea.
>> It's just that the current syntax doesn't quite support it yet.
>>
>> I think that once again, local params are the answer... the same as
>> they were with faceting on a single field but excluding different
>> filters.
>>
>> facet.field={!prefix=foo key=label1}myfield
>> facet.field={!prefix=bar key=label2}myfield
>>
>> -Yonik
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>>
>