that doesnt work either, and even if it did, joining is not going to be a
solution since i cant query 1 core and facet on the result of the other. To
sum up, my problem is
core0
--------
field:id
field: text
core1
--------
field:id
field tag
I want to
1) query text field of core0,
2) use the {id} of matches (which can be >>10K) to retrieve the docs in
core 1 with same id and
3) facet on tags in core1
Is this possible without denormalizing (which is not an option)?
thank you
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Jack Krupansky <jack.krupan...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Specify the join query parser for the main query. See:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Other+Parsers#OtherParsers-JoinQueryParser
>
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Robust Links <pey...@robustlinks.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Erick
> >
> > they are on the same JVM. I had already tried the core join strategy but
> > that doesnt solve the faceting problem... i.e if i have 2 cores, core0
> and
> > core1, and I run this query on core0
> >
> > /select?&q=<QUERY>fq={!join from=id1 to=id2
> > fromIndex=core1}&facet=true&facet.field=tag
> >
> > has 2 problems
> > 1) i need to specify the docIDs with the fq (so back to the same
> > fq={!terms} problem), and
> > 2) faceting doesnt work
> >
> >
> > Flattening the data is not possible due to security reasons.
> >
> > Am I using join correctly?
> >
> > thank you Erick
> >
> > Peyman
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Are these indexes on different machines? Because if they're in the
> > > same JVM, you might be able to use cross-core joins. Be aware, though,
> > > that joining on high-cardinality fields (which, by definition, docID
> > > probably is) is where pseudo joins perform worst.
> > >
> > > Have you considered flattening the data and including whatever
> > > information you have in your "from" index in your main index? Because
> > > < 100ms response is probably not going to be tough if you have to have
> > > two indexes/cores.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Erick
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Joel Bernstein <joels...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > You may have to do something custom to meet your needs.
> > > >
> > > > 10,000 DocID's is not huge but you're latency requirement are pretty
> > low.
> > > >
> > > > Are your DocID's by any chance integers? This can make custom
> > PostFilters
> > > > run much faster.
> > > >
> > > > You should also be aware of the Streaming API in Solr 5.1 which will
> > give
> > > > you fast Map/Reduce approaches (
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-streaming-api-solrjio-basics.html
> > > ).
> > > >
> > > > Joel Bernstein
> > > > http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Robust Links <pey...@robustlinks.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hey Joel
> > > >>
> > > >> see below
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Joel Bernstein <joels...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > A few questions for you:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > How large can the list of filtering ID's be?
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> >> 10k
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > What's your expectation on latency?
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> 10> latency <100
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > What version of Solr are you using?
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> 5.0.0
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > SolrCloud or not?
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> not
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Joel Bernstein
> > > >> > http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Robust Links <
> > pey...@robustlinks.com>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Hi
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I have a set of document IDs from one core and i want to query
> > > another
> > > >> > core
> > > >> > > using the ids retrieved from the first core...the constraint is
> > that
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > size of doc ID set can be very large. I want to:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > 1) retrieve these docs from the 2nd index
> > > >> > > 2) facet on the results
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I can think of 3 solutions:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > 1) boolean query
> > > >> > > 2) terms fq
> > > >> > > 3) use a DB rather than Solr
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I am trying to keep latencies down so prefer to not use (3). The
> > > >> problem
> > > >> > > with (1) is maxBooleanclauses is hardwired and I am not sure
> when
> > I
> > > >> will
> > > >> > > hit the exception. Option (2) seems to also hit limits.. so if I
> > do
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > select?fl=*&q=*:*&facet=true&facet.field=title&fq={!terms
> > > >> > > f=id}<LONG_LIST_OF_IDS>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > solr just goes blank. I have tried adding cost=200 to try to run
> > the
> > > >> > query
> > > >> > > first fq={!terms f=id cost=200} but still no good. Paging on doc
> > IDs
> > > >> > could
> > > >> > > be a solution but the problem then is that the faceting results
> > > >> > correspond
> > > >> > > to the paged IDs and not the global set.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > My filter cache spec is as follows
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > <filterCache class="solr.FastLRUCache"
> > > >> > > size="1000000"
> > > >> > > initialSize="1000000"
> > > >> > > autowarmCount="100000"/>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > What would be the best way for me to solve this problem?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > thank you
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
