Re: Nested grouping/field collapsing
Hey Martijn, Did you find a good workaround? Rih On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 5:35 AM, Martijn Laarman mpdre...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Mike, I've opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2553 for this. It's exciting to hear a workable implementation might be possible! On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: Can you open a Lucene issue (against the new grouping module) for this? I think this is a compelling use case that we should try to support. In theory, with the general two-pass grouping collector, this should be possible, but will require three passes, and we also must generalize the 2nd pass collector to accept arbitrary collectors for each group (today it's hardwired to sort-by-SortField collectors). I suspect coupling the single-pass grouping collector (currently still a patch on LUCENE-3129) with the two-pass collector could also work. Also, can you describe more details about the two fields you want to group/collapse by? Mike http://blog.mikemccandless.com On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Martijn Laarman mpdre...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I was wondering if this issue had already been raised. We currently have a use case where nested field collapsing would be really helpful I.e Collapse on field X then Collapse on Field Y within the groups returned by field X The current behavior of specifying multiple fields seem to be returning mutiple result sets. Has this already been feature requested ? Does anybody know of a workaround ? Many thanks, Martijn
Re: Nested grouping/field collapsing
Hi, I was wondering if this issue had already been raised. We currently have a use case where nested field collapsing would be really helpful I.e Collapse on field X then Collapse on Field Y within the groups returned by field X The current behavior of specifying multiple fields seem to be returning mutiple result sets. Has this already been feature requested ? Does anybody know of a workaround ? Many thanks, Martijn
Re: Nested grouping/field collapsing
I've found the same issue. As long as I know, the only solution is to create a copy field which combines both-fields values and facet on this field. If one of the fields has a set of distinct values known in advance and its cardinality c is not too big, it isn't a great problem: you can do with c queries. El 27/05/2011, a las 15:03, Martijn Laarman escribió: Hi, I was wondering if this issue had already been raised. We currently have a use case where nested field collapsing would be really helpful I.e Collapse on field X then Collapse on Field Y within the groups returned by field X The current behavior of specifying multiple fields seem to be returning mutiple result sets. Has this already been feature requested ? Does anybody know of a workaround ? Many thanks, Martijn
Nested grouping/field collapsing
Hi, I was wondering if this issue had already been raised. We currently have a use case where nested field collapsing would be really helpful I.e Collapse on field X then Collapse on Field Y within the groups returned by field X The current behavior of specifying multiple fields seem to be returning mutiple result sets. Has this already been feature requested ? Does anybody know of a workaround ? Many thanks, Martijn
Re: Nested grouping/field collapsing
Did you try pivot? Bill Bell Sent from mobile On May 27, 2011, at 4:13 AM, Martijn Laarman mpdre...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I was wondering if this issue had already been raised. We currently have a use case where nested field collapsing would be really helpful I.e Collapse on field X then Collapse on Field Y within the groups returned by field X The current behavior of specifying multiple fields seem to be returning mutiple result sets. Has this already been feature requested ? Does anybody know of a workaround ? Many thanks, Martijn
Re: Nested grouping/field collapsing
Can you open a Lucene issue (against the new grouping module) for this? I think this is a compelling use case that we should try to support. In theory, with the general two-pass grouping collector, this should be possible, but will require three passes, and we also must generalize the 2nd pass collector to accept arbitrary collectors for each group (today it's hardwired to sort-by-SortField collectors). I suspect coupling the single-pass grouping collector (currently still a patch on LUCENE-3129) with the two-pass collector could also work. Also, can you describe more details about the two fields you want to group/collapse by? Mike http://blog.mikemccandless.com On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Martijn Laarman mpdre...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I was wondering if this issue had already been raised. We currently have a use case where nested field collapsing would be really helpful I.e Collapse on field X then Collapse on Field Y within the groups returned by field X The current behavior of specifying multiple fields seem to be returning mutiple result sets. Has this already been feature requested ? Does anybody know of a workaround ? Many thanks, Martijn
Re: Nested grouping/field collapsing
Thanks Mike, I've opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2553 for this. It's exciting to hear a workable implementation might be possible! On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: Can you open a Lucene issue (against the new grouping module) for this? I think this is a compelling use case that we should try to support. In theory, with the general two-pass grouping collector, this should be possible, but will require three passes, and we also must generalize the 2nd pass collector to accept arbitrary collectors for each group (today it's hardwired to sort-by-SortField collectors). I suspect coupling the single-pass grouping collector (currently still a patch on LUCENE-3129) with the two-pass collector could also work. Also, can you describe more details about the two fields you want to group/collapse by? Mike http://blog.mikemccandless.com On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Martijn Laarman mpdre...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I was wondering if this issue had already been raised. We currently have a use case where nested field collapsing would be really helpful I.e Collapse on field X then Collapse on Field Y within the groups returned by field X The current behavior of specifying multiple fields seem to be returning mutiple result sets. Has this already been feature requested ? Does anybody know of a workaround ? Many thanks, Martijn
