Thanks for the replies.

@Mike: Yes, I think the idea is to run separate queries for each of the
resulting hits, as you described. I am concerned about the performance
implications of going down this route, especially when dealing with large
result sets.

@Mikhail: Thanks for the suggestion! I actually hadn't thought of that.
Could you please provide more details on how we could approach the problem
from this angle?

Thanks,
Stefan Onofrei

On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 9:59 PM Mikhail Khludnev <m...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi, Stefan.
> Have you considered faceting/aggregation over `from` field?
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 7:23 PM Stefan Onofrei <stefanonof...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > When using Lucene’s query-time join feature [1], how can the hits from
> the
> > first phase which determine / contribute to the returned results be
> > retrieved?
> >
> > This topic has been brought up before [2], and at the time the
> > recommendation was to re-run the query with added constraints based on
> the
> > join fields values. Is there any alternative way of doing this when
> trying
> > to get the contributing hits for every returned result and in the context
> > of having multiple terms in the toField?
> >
> > I see that the info that is being tracked by the Join API refers to the
> > scores and the terms collected in the first phase. During this feature’s
> > development [3] there was also a 3-phased approach taken into
> > consideration, which involved recording fromSearcher’s docIds,
> translating
> > them into joinable terms and then recording toSearcher’s docIds. However,
> > even if docId info would be recorded between phases, it would then have
> to
> > be exposed somehow.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Stefan Onofrei
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://lucene.apache.org/core/8_5_1/join/org/apache/lucene/search/join/JoinUtil.html
> > [2]
> >
> >
> https://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/access-to-joined-documents-td4412376.html
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3602
> >
>
>
> --
> Sincerely yours
> Mikhail Khludnev
>

Reply via email to