Hi Greg,
I'm also OK merging as is since this is a new feature and doesn't affect
any of the current functionality. I also think there are no glaring issues
with the API in its current state. However, I do think that merging the
range and rangeonrange functionality makes sense and I like Adrien's
suggestion of providing factory methods. I think if we merge in its current
state we should create a new issue to refactor the range and
rangeonrange faceting package into one and follow the RangeFieldQuery model
more closely.
On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 2:58 PM Greg Miller <gsmil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Marc-
>
> I don't want to speak for Adrien as he might have something different in
> mind, but I think that's more-or-less the idea. I'm not sure the factory
> methods belong on the LongRange/DoubleRange classes, or if separate classes
> should be created for this purpose (which is more how I thought of it)?
>
> To do this cleanly though, I'd really like us to try to consolidate all
> the "range related" faceting functionality into one java package and
> consolidate the API a bit. As part of this, I think we can be a little
> smarter about not duplicating the "range" classes themselves.
>
> All this said, given that I think your "range on range" faceting PR is
> ready to be merged as it currently exists, and has been through a number of
> iteration already, I'm OK if we want to merge that work as it stands and
> follow up with revisiting the API/naming/etc. as a future project. What do
> you think?
>
> Cheers,
> -Greg
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 7:23 PM Marc D'Mello <marcd2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm a bit unsure about what is being suggested. Is the idea to rename
>> range#LongRange and rangeonrange#LongRange to LongFieldFacets and
>> LongRangeFacets respectively and stick the static getters in there? In that
>> case, I also think that the idea makes a lot of sense and that it would
>> match our current range query API much better.
>>
>> In addition, looking at document#LongRange, there are queries like
>> newContainsQuery() and newWithinQuery() that we can probably mimic to
>> avoid exposing RangeFieldQuery.QueryType to the user.
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 5:04 PM Greg Miller <gsmil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the suggestion Adrien. I like this idea! Marc- what do you
>>> think?
>>>
>>> We might need to rework the package structure under the facets module to
>>> make this clean, but that might not be a terrible thing anyway. The
>>> existing sub-packages will make it challenging to get the visibility right.
>>> I think it would be ideal to flatten the package so we can reduce
>>> visibility of the class definitions and only expose the factory methods.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Greg
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 01:18 Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wonder if the facets actually require a different name, since they
>>>> look to me like a generalization of range facets for range fields,
>>>> while we previously only supported range facets on numeric fields. We
>>>> could keep calling them range facets?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we could use the same model we used for queries by not exposing
>>>> query classes to users and providing factory methods, e.g. we could
>>>> have something like:
>>>>
>>>> public class LongFieldFacets {
>>>>
>>>> public static Facets getRangeFacetCounts(String field,
>>>> FacetsCollector hits, LongRange... ranges) {
>>>> return new LongRangeFacetCounts(...);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> public class LongRangeFacets {
>>>>
>>>> // same function name
>>>> public static Facets getRangeFacetCounts(String field,
>>>> FacetsCollector hits, RangeFieldQuery.QueryType queryType,
>>>> LongRange... ranges) {
>>>> return new LongRangeOnRangeFacetCounts(...);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> We'd still need to give a name for these classes, but the name would
>>>> be less important since these class names would be only for ourselves.
>>>> Users would never see them and refer to this new functionality as
>>>> range facets on range fields?
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 10:11 PM Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > In that case, maybe "Range Logic Faceting" ?
>>>> >
>>>> > Relation seems too broad and too overloaded elsewhere, makes me think
>>>> of RDBMS, related-ness, joins and such via word associations.
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 3:27 PM Greg Miller <gsmil...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Thank for the suggestion! I like the descriptiveness of it. My only
>>>> hesitation is that is supports more than range intersection based on the
>>>> provided QueryType instance (e.g., within, contains). I _imagine_ that
>>>> intersection will be most common, but I don’t really know of course. I
>>>> thought about generalizing your suggestion to something like “Range
>>>> Relation Faceting,” but fear that would be confusing.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Thanks again!
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Cheers,
>>>> >> -Greg
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 10:19 Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Maybe "Range Intersect Faceting"?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 1:11 PM Greg Miller <gsmil...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Folks-
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Naming is hard! (But you all know that already).
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Marc D'Mello and I have been working on a new faceting
>>>> implementation that's meant to complement Lucene's existing range-relation
>>>> queries (e.g., LongRange#newIntersectsQuery, DoubleRange#newContainsQuery,
>>>> LongRangeDocValuesField#newSlowIntersectsQuery, etc.). Well, I should say
>>>> Marc is working on the change and I'm just providing nit-picky feedback on
>>>> his PR, which is here: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/11901.
>>>> The general idea of this feature is to allow users to get facet counts for
>>>> these sorts of range-relation filters before they're applied. For example,
>>>> if a user is indexing ranges with their documents, they may have a set of
>>>> query-ranges they want to facet on, based on some range relationship (e.g.,
>>>> intersection, contains, etc.).
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> As a concrete example, imagine that documents contain a price
>>>> range (maybe a document represents some e-commerce product but the price
>>>> varies based on some configuration options), and a user wants to build a
>>>> price range filter that applies filtering based on whether-or-not the two
>>>> ranges intersect (i.e., DoubleRange#newIntersectsQuery to apply a price
>>>> range filter). This user wants faceting capabilities over the different
>>>> price ranges they want to make available, so they need a way to facet over
>>>> a list of provided query-ranges, based on the "intersect" relationship with
>>>> the doc-encoded ranges. That's what Marc's "RangeOnRange" faceting is
>>>> trying to accomplish.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> In my opinion, the PR is really close to being ready (thanks again
>>>> Marc!), but I'm wondering if we can come up with a more descriptive name.
>>>> As it currently stands, the feature is termed "RangeOnRange Faceting,"
>>>> which feels just a bit wonky to me. That said, I can't really come up with
>>>> anything better.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> ** Does anyone have suggestions on a better name? **
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Any / all suggestions appreciated! (And of course, any other input
>>>> on the PR is welcome if anyone is interested).
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Cheers,
>>>> >>>> -Greg
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> --
>>>> >>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work)
>>>> >>> http://www.the111shift.com (play)
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work)
>>>> > http://www.the111shift.com (play)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Adrien
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
