[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2863?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13138394#comment-13138394
 ] 

Martijn van Groningen commented on SOLR-2863:
---------------------------------------------

Ok I get what you mean. I think this is not bug, but rather a missing feature. 
The type of post grouped faceting you want isn't yet implemented in Solr / 
Lucene. In LUCENE-3097 I described three different post grouping facet types. 
The one that fits your need (which I call matrix counts) is not yet 
implemented. 

The group.truncate only selects for all the groups matching the query the most 
relevant document and uses that as base for a facet. Any subsequent documents 
inside a group are not visible during faceting.

What is unfortunate is that the combination of group.ngroups and fq does work 
the way you want it and thus this explains the difference in facet count and 
ngroup count.
                
> Solr 3.4 group.truncate does not work with facet queries
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-2863
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2863
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: search
>    Affects Versions: 3.4
>         Environment: Solr 3.4 on Windows Server 2008.
>            Reporter: Ian Grainger
>              Labels: facet, grouping, query, search, truncate
>
> When using Grouping with group.truncate=true, The following simple facet 
> query:
> facet.query=Monitor_id:[380000 TO 400000]
> Doesn't give the same number as the nGroups result for the equivalent filter 
> query:
> fq=Monitor_id:[380000 TO 400000]
> From the Wiki page: 'group.truncate: If true, facet counts are based on the 
> most relevant document of each group matching the query.'
> If I turn off group.truncate then the counts are the same, as I'd expect - 
> but unfortunately I'm only interested in the grouped results.
> Asked this question on the Solr-user mailing list and was told it is likely a 
> bug by: Martijn Groningen.
> I'd be very interested in any workaround for this bug!

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to