gsmiller commented on PR #843: URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/843#issuecomment-1111552499
I also suspect the current functionality is more useful for the majority of use-cases than actually truncating by a top-n and sorting the ranges by their counts. I imagine the order of ranges actually means something in many of these cases (i.e., there may be a natural numeric ordering between the ranges that the user wants to maintain). If we instead sorted the resulting ranges by their counts, it might be somewhat challenging for the user to reconcile. It's also pretty trivial work to provide counts for all of the ranges. Unlike other faceting implementations, we don't have to do ordinal -> path lookups or anything for each value we provide. So I suspect the desired behavior for most users is actually what's implemented today, but I also would agree that the API is pretty wonky and confusing. It feels like we might benefit from a "get all children" type method for this sort of thing. I suspect this is a bit of an artifact of later adding range facet counting by implementing a faceting API more tailored towards taxonomy faceting. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
