lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mikhail Khludnev <m...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Re: Tagging and excluding Filters with BlockJoin Queries and BlockJoin Faceting
Date Wed, 24 Aug 2016 07:05:41 GMT
Sure. There are might mismatch with expectation. However, the first guess
is to put {!tag into beginning. eg, check with
fq={!tag=myTag}{!parent which='isparent:true'}color:blue

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Tobias Lorenz <lorenz@shoptimax.de> wrote:

> Hi Mikhail,
>
> Thanks for replying so quickly with a suggestion.
>
> I'm a colleague of Stefan and working with him on our project.
>
> We tried composing our solr query with exclusion instructions, and the
> result was that the facet excluded by tag did not show up anymore in the
> result, instead of showing all values.
>
> Your example from the last comment, completed by our exlusion instruction:
>
> json.facet={
>   filter_by_children: {
>     type: query,
>     q: "isparent:false",
>     domain: {
>       blockChildren: "isparent:true"
>     },
>     facet: {
>       colors: {
>         type: terms,
>         field: color,
>         domain:{
>           excludeTags:myTag
>         },
>         facet: {
>           productsCount: "unique(_root_)"
>         }
>       }
>     }
>   }
> }
>
>
> and the corresponding filter query:
>
> fq={!parent which='isparent:true'}{!tag=myTag}color:blue
>
>
> Either this feature is not working yet, or we are making a mistake using
> it.
> Of course we know it's still in development right now.
>
> Might you please have a look if we are doing something obviously wrong?
>
> Thanks,
> Tobias
>
>
>
> >The last comment at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8998 shows
> >the current verbose json.facet syntax which provides aggregated facet
> >counts already. It's a little bit slower that child.facet.field.
> >Nevertheless, you can take this sample and add exclusion instructions
> into.
> >It should work. Let me know how does it, please.
> >
> >On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Stefan Moises <moises@shoptimax.de>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Mikhail,
> >>
> >> thanks for the info ... what is the advantage of using the JSON FACET
> API
> >> compared to the standard BlockJoinQuery features?
> >>
> >> Is there already anybody working on the tagging/exclusion feature or is
> >> there any timeframe for it? There wasn't any discussion yet in SOLR-8998
> >> about exclusions, was there?
> >>
> >> Thank you very much,
> >>
> >> best,
> >>
> >> Stefan
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 17.08.16 um 15:26 schrieb Mikhail Khludnev:
> >>
> >> Stefan,
> >>> child.facet.field never intend to support exclusions. My preference is
> to
> >>> implement it under json.facet that's discussed under
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8998.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Stefan Moises <moises@shoptimax.de>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hey girls and guys,
> >>>>
> >>>> for a long time we have been using our own BlockJoin Implementation,
> >>>> because for our Shop Systems a lot of requirements that we had were
> not
> >>>> implemented in solr.
> >>>>
> >>>> As we now had a deeper look into how far the standard has come, we saw
> >>>> that BlockJoin and faceting on children is now part of the standard,
> >>>> which
> >>>> is pretty cool.
> >>>> When I tried to refactor our external code to use that now, I stumbled
> >>>> upon one non-working feature with BlockJoins that still keeps us from
> >>>> using
> >>>> it:
> >>>>
> >>>> It seems that tagging and excluding Filters with BlockJoin Faceting
> >>>> simply
> >>>> does not work yet.
> >>>>
> >>>> Simple query:
> >>>>
> >>>> &qt=products
> >>>> &q={!parent which='isparent:true'}shirt AND isparent:false
> >>>> &facet=true
> >>>> &fq={!parent which='isparent:true'}{!tag=myTag}color:grey
> >>>> &child.facet.field={!ex=myTag}color
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Gives us:
> >>>> o.a.s.h.RequestHandlerBase org.apache.solr.common.SolrException:
> >>>> undefined field: "{!ex=myTag}color"
> >>>>          at org.apache.solr.schema.IndexSchema.getField(IndexSchema.
> >>>> java:1231)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Does somebody have an idea?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>> Stefan
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> --
> >>>> ************************************
> >>>> Stefan Moises
> >>>> Manager Research & Development
> >>>> shoptimax GmbH
> >>>> Ulmenstraße 52 H
> >>>> 90443 Nürnberg
> >>>> Tel.: 0911/25566-0
> >>>> Fax: 0911/25566-29
> >>>> moises@shoptimax.de
> >>>> http://www.shoptimax.de
> >>>>
> >>>> Geschäftsführung: Friedrich Schreieck
> >>>> Ust.-IdNr.: DE 814340642
> >>>> Amtsgericht Nürnberg HRB 21703
> >>>>    ************************************
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> --
> >> ************************************
> >> Stefan Moises
> >> Manager Research & Development
> >> shoptimax GmbH
> >> Ulmenstraße 52 H
> >> 90443 Nürnberg
> >> Tel.: 0911/25566-0
> >> Fax: 0911/25566-29
> >> moises@shoptimax.de
> >> http://www.shoptimax.de
> >>
> >> Geschäftsführung: Friedrich Schreieck
> >> Ust.-IdNr.: DE 814340642
> >> Amtsgericht Nürnberg HRB 21703
> >>   ************************************
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >Sincerely yours
> >Mikhail Khludnev
> >
> >
>



-- 
Sincerely yours
Mikhail Khludnev

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message