lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Otis Gospodnetic <otis_gospodne...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: No "group by"? looking for an alternative.
Date Sun, 08 Aug 2010 12:47:51 GMT
Dennis,

Unfortunately it's not ready, at least not SOLR-236.  There is another issue 
that you could look at.... from memory, I think it's SOLR-1682.

Otis
----
Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/



----- Original Message ----
> From: Dennis Gearon <gearond@sbcglobal.net>
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Fri, August 6, 2010 10:44:35 AM
> Subject: Re: No "group by"? looking for an alternative.
> 
> I thought that field collapsing as already 'ready for prime time', just not yet  
>integrated into the core?
> 
> 
> Dennis Gearon
> 
> Signature  Warning
> ----------------
> EARTH has a Right To Life,
>   otherwise we  all die.
> 
> Read 'Hot, Flat, and Crowded'
> Laugh at http://www.yert.com/film.php
> 
> 
> --- On Thu, 8/5/10, Lance Norskog  <goksron@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >  From: Lance Norskog <goksron@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re:  No "group by"? looking for an alternative.
> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> >  Date: Thursday, August 5, 2010, 8:17 PM
> > I can see how one document per  model
> > blows up when you have many
> > options. But how many models  of the shoe do they actually
> > make? They
> > can't possibly make  5000, one for every metadat
> > combination.
> > 
> > If you go with  one document per model, you have to do a
> > second search
> > on that  product ID to get all of the models.
> > 
> > Field Collapsing is  exactly for the 'many shoes for one
> > product'
> > problem, but it is  not released, so the second search is
> > what you
> > want.
> > 
> > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind@jhu.edu>
> > wrote:
> >  > Mickael Magniez wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for your  response.
> > >>
> > >> Unfortunately, I don't think it'll  be enough. In
> > fact, I have many other
> > >> products than  shoes in my index, with many other
> > facets fields.
> >  >>
> > >> I simplified my schema : in reality facets are
> >  dynamic fields.
> > >>
> > >
> > > You could change the  way you do indexing, so every
> > product-color-size combo
> > > is  it's own "document".
> > >
> > > Document1:
> > >    product: running shoe
> > >   size: 12
> > >   color: red
> >  >
> > > Document2:
> > >   product: running shoe
> > >   size: 13
> > >   color: red
> > >
> > > That would let you  do the kind of facetting drill-down
> > you want to do. It
> > >  would of course make other things more complicated.
> > But it's the only  way I
> > > can think of to let you do the kind of facet
> >  drill-down you want, if I
> > > understand what you want correctly, which  I may not.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> >  >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Lance  Norskog
> > goksron@gmail.com
> >
> 

Mime
View raw message