> And you get two single-valued fields instead of one big multi-valued field... > so I'm not sure I am convinced that "dim mixing" is typically a good thing.
Mixing enables the user to model multiple (of their) fields within a single Lucene field. You may have a very lightweight and loosely-managed "schema" (think lots of data suppliers all wanting to add their field names, but with no access to update the index schema) that you want to model in a carefully managed set of (Lucene) index fields. On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 10:09 AM Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 10:02 AM Greg Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I suppose the last thing I'd say is that there are valid use-cases for > > wanting the "top" dims along with their "top" children, and getAllDims > > provides a reasonable way to do this. For example, in Amazon's product > > search, we have a large number of different dims but only want to show > > a small sub-set to customers on a search page. One way to go about > > this would be to determine the "top" dims for the match set along with > > the "top n" values under each; getAllDims is helpful for this but has > > a bit of an unpleasant side-effect that it unnecessarily resolves the > > paths for all children for all dims. As I think about this, I wonder > > if a getTopDims method would be more useful that lets the user specify > > the number of dims they want back along with the number of children > > for each? I'll open a Jira for that. > > getTopDims() seems much more reasonable than getAllDims() for this use-case! > > But still, I feel like facets is "storing" stuff in a > lucene-3.x-style-term-dictionary here. Background: before Lucene 4.0, > all the terms across all the indexed fields were stored in a single > massive dictionary, but each one coded, very similar to what facets is > doing. > > We found it was better to keep fields separate. > > I really think it might be the same for facets. If i have a field > "color", index it with DV so that I can both sort and facet on it. If > i have another field "size", do the same thing. If you want to facet > on both fields, facet on both fields. And you get two single-valued > fields instead of one big multi-valued field... so I'm not sure I am > convinced that "dim mixing" is typically a good thing. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
