> On 09 Dec 2014, at 18:10, Michael Marth <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I agree that facets *with* counts are better than without counts, but > disagree that they are worthless without counts (see the Amazon link Tommaso > posted earlier on this thread). There is value in providing the information > that *some* results will appear when a user selects a facet . > > The use cases problematic case for counting the facets I have in mind are > when a query returns millions of results. This is problematic when one wants > to retrieve the exact size of the result set (taking ACLs into account, > obviously). When facets are to be retrieved this will be an even harder > problem (meaning when the exact number is to be calculated per facet). > As an illustration consider a digital asset management application that > displays mime type as facets. A query could return 1 million images and, say, > 10 video. > > Is there a way we could support such scenarios (while still counting results > per facet) and have a performant implementation? > > (I should note that I have not tested how long it takes to retrieve and > ACL-check 1 million nodes - maybe my concern is invalid)
yeah such stuff can easily cause severe slow downs. so count optional or count only up to some specified max value is nice but complicates the API. regards, Lukas Kahwe Smith [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
