Ryan McKinley wrote:
Yonik Seeley wrote:
The whole topTerms thing is exactly the same concept as faceting
with *:* as a base (with perhaps the exception of ignoring deleted
docs by using df?)
Should these parameters be aligned somehow?
Using the faceting implementation would be good too... since you would
get the all the caching etc.
maybe it can directly use faceting parameters (and implementation) for
"topTerms" -- if nothing is specified for "facet.field", it will add all
fields (alternatively, normal faceting could support *, but that seems
like a bad idea in the general case)
I'll take a look at that and see how it feels...
There are a few show stoppers with that idea.... most notable the
faceting implementation needs a solr field. Much of the motivation for
the LukeRequestHandler is to inspect an index regardless of what solr
thinks about it.
- - - -
How do you imagine the parameters would be aligned?
It could use the same per/field specification:
f.category.facet.limit=5
perhaps it Luke should support:
terms.top=10
and
f.category.terms.top=10
I'm reluctant to go this route because it makes asking if any we should
calculate top terms or not difficut (ok, akward) and i'm not sure it
helps that much...
I'll make a JIRA issue with a simple implementation you all can poke at.
ryan
