Hi, Stefan. I'm just thinking loud. Let's say we join FromDoc with (FromID, FromFK) to ToDoc via ToDoc.ID=FromFK. Results are ToDocs obviously. But if we count facet of FromFK over fromQuery, its' values matches to ToDoc.IDs, then we can sub-facet (or nested facet) by FromIDs that gives us full relation extracted. Not sure if it helps.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:37 AM Stefan Onofrei <stefanonof...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > -- Sincerely yours Mikhail Khludnev
