AAAARRGG - [banging my head against the wall] Of course. You are abolutely right about the multi valuedness Thanks for the 7.0 hint. Gives a reason to upgrade. Need to re-index when upgrading?
Kenny [image: ONTOFORCE] <http://www.ontoforce.com/> Kenny Knecht, PhD CTO and technical lead +32 486 75 66 16 <0032498464291> ke...@ontoforce.com <pe...@ontoforce.com> www.ontoforce.com Meetdistrict, Ottergemsesteenweg-Zuid 808, 9000 Gent, Belgium CIC, One Broadway, MA 02142 Cambridge, United States On 11 November 2017 at 15:52, Yonik Seeley <ysee...@gmail.com> wrote: > Also, If you're looking at all constraints, you shouldn't need refine:true > But if you do need it, it was only added in Solr 7.0 (and I see you're > using 6.6) > > -Yonik > > > On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Yonik Seeley <ysee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Kenny Knecht <ke...@ontoforce.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Yonik, > >> > >> I am aware of the estimate on the hll. But we don't use the hll as a > >> baseline for comparison. We ask the values for one facet (for example > >> Gender). We store these counts for each bucket. Next we do another > request. > >> This time for a facet and a subfacet (for example Gender x Type). We sum > >> all the values of Type with the same Gender and compare these sums with > the > >> numbers of previous request. These numbers differ by 60% which is quite > >> worrying. Not always it depends on the facet, but still. > >> Did you get any reports like this? > > > > Nope. The counts for the scenario you describe should add up exactly > > for single-valued fields. Are you sure you're adding in the "missing" > > bucket? > > > > When you some up the sub-facets on Type, do you get a value under or > > over the counts on the parent facet? > > Verify that Type is single-valued. One would not expect facets on a > > multi-valued field to add up in the same way. > > Verify that you're getting all of the Type constraints by using a > > limit of -1on that sub-facet. > > > > -Yonik >
