I guess that returning the facets without the counts really weakens the story of facets. Yes, amazon does it for some searches, but usually it does not. For the use case I have in mind, I would like the counts.
Options 3 or 6 seem like decent avenues to explore. 1, 2, and 4 seem like bad ideas (1 undercuts the idea that we'd use lucene/solr to get decent performance. 2 drops the counts. 4 feels like something we would regret, because of the complexity). I'll admit it: I didn't understand option 5. Thanks, Laurie On 12/8/14 2:19 AM, "Michael Marth" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi, > >About security, I wonder what are the common configurations. I think we >should avoid a complex (but slow, and hard to implement) solution that can >solve 100% of all possible _theoretical_ cases, but instead go for a >(faster, simpler) solution that covers 99% of all _pratical_ cases. > >I am not sure if you are hinting towards one of the proposed approaches >with that statement. IMO this simplification suggested by Tommaso makes >sense: > >only if there's at least one item (node) in the >(filtered) results which falls under that facet. That would mean that we >would not return the counts of the facets, but a facet would be returned >if >there's at least one item in the results belonging to it > >Best regards >Michael
