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 Tue, 13 Sep 2016 12:38:15 GMT
I made one more attempt. It seems it works.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8998?focusedCommentId=15487095&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15487095

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Tobias Lorenz <lorenz@shoptimax.de> wrote:

> I tried that too, with no effect.
>
> The excluded facet just disappears completely (even the value that is
> filtered on in the fq) when using the exclusion that has been tagged, like
> it did before.
> When using a random exclusion (e.g. foo) that facet is visible again in
> the result set, but that's obviously not helpful, I just tried to see what
> it would do.
>
> So this is my current research result:
>
> When excluding a facet which has been tagged in a filter query, this facet
> corresponding to the fq's tag disappears in the result set in solr 6.1 when
> using BlockJoin Queries and json facets (which it shouldn't).
>
> Let me know if you want me to do more research or have one more idea.
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Mikhail Khludnev [mailto:mkhl@apache.org]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. August 2016 09:06
> An: solr-user <solr-user@lucene.apache.org>
> Betreff: Re: Re: Tagging and excluding Filters with BlockJoin Queries and
> BlockJoin Faceting
>
> 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
>



-- 
Sincerely yours
Mikhail Khludnev

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