lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kenny Knecht <ke...@ontoforce.com>
Subject Re: Nested facet complete wrong counts
Date Sat, 11 Nov 2017 17:17:22 GMT
AAAARRGG - [banging my head against the wall]
Of course. You are abolutely right about the multi valuedness
Thanks for the 7.0 hint. Gives a reason to upgrade.
Need to re-index when upgrading?

Kenny



[image: ONTOFORCE] <http://www.ontoforce.com/>
Kenny Knecht, PhD
CTO and technical lead
+32 486 75 66 16 <0032498464291>
kenny@ontoforce.com <peter@ontoforce.com>
www.ontoforce.com Meetdistrict, Ottergemsesteenweg-Zuid 808, 9000 Gent,
Belgium
CIC, One Broadway, MA 02142 Cambridge, United States

On 11 November 2017 at 15:52, Yonik Seeley <yseeley@gmail.com> wrote:

> Also, If you're looking at all constraints, you shouldn't need refine:true
> But if you do need it, it was only added in Solr 7.0 (and I see you're
> using 6.6)
>
> -Yonik
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Yonik Seeley <yseeley@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Kenny Knecht <kenny@ontoforce.com>
> wrote:
> >> Hi Yonik,
> >>
> >> I am aware of the estimate on the hll. But we don't use the hll as a
> >> baseline for comparison. We ask the values for one facet (for example
> >> Gender). We store these counts for each bucket. Next we do another
> request.
> >> This time for a facet and a subfacet (for example Gender x Type). We sum
> >> all the values of Type with the same Gender and compare these sums with
> the
> >> numbers of previous request. These numbers differ by 60% which is quite
> >> worrying. Not always it depends on the facet, but still.
> >> Did you get any reports like this?
> >
> > Nope.  The counts for the scenario you describe should add up exactly
> > for single-valued fields.  Are you sure you're adding in the "missing"
> > bucket?
> >
> > When you some up the sub-facets on Type, do you get a value under or
> > over the counts on the parent facet?
> > Verify that Type is single-valued.  One would not expect facets on a
> > multi-valued field to add up in the same way.
> > Verify that you're getting all of the Type constraints by using a
> > limit of -1on that sub-facet.
> >
> > -Yonik
>

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