Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8F39210464 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 22:44:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 2414 invoked by uid 500); 9 Sep 2013 22:44:23 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 2351 invoked by uid 500); 9 Sep 2013 22:44:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact solr-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list solr-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 2343 invoked by uid 99); 9 Sep 2013 22:44:23 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 22:44:23 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: error (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.160.41] (HELO mail-pb0-f41.google.com) (209.85.160.41) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 22:44:16 +0000 Received: by mail-pb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id rp2so6734162pbb.14 for ; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 15:43:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:message-id :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=MQZs3U7m0AX3pIKtJ99pPz47FbgYMR6tphZAEovWUn0=; b=BgJM8P7fzl8xnYhg2vP579sS25uZKCPXI4R4oHUw376i7v6jKoEUI0xHhqNT5+lxtw GqP59grjht6HxM/Nd1GLmAuE3u7Px211dPux34fLS7KPfidwEMwCy1zjTvyeWN4T/IH+ ujeK/SaxMFTS9jevO0IkjzA6nPFtFC93taB6Sy/RZW+Hc9Fg+2bI8I/ROnpmLijiLAob mY4PfJ1CV7eR5QGvHc1Qv/fBTsrUAp58LKqCmoGv9ZnL4q2S8PoyQLi9hs3RK/1WIBcM 4RA+A9VgiFpPCm7W0KyrYP5HD9sag4o4QV2s1BrhNJYaA2gMqqP8Z2LiKyXQ69tFX7DI 3CaA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl11DIasfpzHw26dNRJsbUdcEqSmJHwk6qXLhQWezaOMIcdzYa6ew6nLNF4e4oepwJnisG+ X-Received: by 10.66.161.38 with SMTP id xp6mr5661756pab.145.1378766616591; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 15:43:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from frisbee.local (c-68-63-180-159.hsd1.az.comcast.net. [68.63.180.159]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id nj9sm18569026pbc.13.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Sep 2013 15:43:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 15:43:32 -0700 (MST) From: Chris Hostetter To: "solr-user@lucene.apache.org" Subject: Re: Facet sort descending In-Reply-To: <7CB959991CED524889ED7F553938464368793BDD@srvmx01.imagic.local> Message-ID: References: <7CB959991CED524889ED7F553938464368793BDD@srvmx01.imagic.local> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org : Is there a plan to add a descending sort order for facet queries ? : Best regards Sandro I don't understand your question. if you specify multiple facet.query params, then the constraint counts are returned in the order they were initially specified -- there is no need for server side sorting, because they all come back (as opposed to facet.field where the number of constraints can be unbounded and you may request just the top X using facet.limit) If you are asking about facet.field and using facet.sort to specify the order of the constraints for each field, then no -- i don't believe anyone is currently working on adding options for descending sort. I don't think it would be hard to add if someone wanted to ... I just don't know that there has ever been enough demand for anyone to look into it. -Hoss