Hmmm, that's getting to be a pretty clunky query sure enough. Now you're going to have to insure that HTTP request that long get through and stuff like that....
I'm reaching a bit here, but you can facet on a tokenized field. Although that's not often done there's no prohibition against it. So, what if you had just one field for each city that contained some abstract information about your fares etc. Something like janstdfareclass1 jancheapfareclass3 febstdfareclass6.... Now just facet on that field? Not #values# in that field, just the field itself. You'd then have to make those into human-readable text, but that would considerably simplify your query. Probably only works if your user is selecting from pre-defined ranges, if they expect to put in arbitrary ranges this scheme probably wouldn't work... Best Erick On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 10:22 AM, lee carroll <lee.a.carr...@googlemail.com>wrote: > Hi Erick, > so if i understand you we could do something like: > > if Jan is selected in the user interface and we have 10 price ranges > > query would be 20 cluases in the query (10 * 2 fare clases) > > if first is selected in the user interface and we have 10 price ranges > query would be 120 cluases (12 months * 10 price ranges) > > if first and jan selected with 10 price ranges > query would be 10 cluases > > if we required facets to be returned for all price combinations we'd need > to > supply > 240 cluases > > the user interface would also need to collate the individual fields into > meaningful aggragates for the user (ie numbers by month, numbers by fare > class) > > have I understood or missed the point (i usually have) > > > > > On 1 December 2010 15:00, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'd think that facet.query would work for you, something like: > > &facet=true&facet.query=FareJanStandard:[price1 TO > > price2]&facet.query:fareJanStandard[price2 TO price3] > > You can string as many facet.query clauses as you want, across as many > > fields as you want, they're all > > independent and will get their own sections in the response. > > > > Best > > Erick > > > > On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 4:55 AM, lee carroll < > lee.a.carr...@googlemail.com > > >wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > I've built a schema for a proof of concept and it is all working fairly > > > fine, niave maybe but fine. > > > However I think we might run into trouble in the future if we ever use > > > facets. > > > > > > The data models train destination city routes from a origin city: > > > Doc:City > > > Name: cityname [uniq key] > > > CityType: city type values [nine possible values so good for > faceting] > > > ... [other city attricbutes which relate directy to the doc unique > > key] > > > all have limited vocab so good for faceting > > > FareJanStandard:cheapest standard fare in january(float value) > > > FareJanFirst:cheapest first class fare in january(float value) > > > FareFebStandard:cheapest standard fare in feb(float value) > > > FareFebFirst:cheapest first fare in feb(float value) > > > ..... etc > > > > > > The question is how would i best facet fare price? The desire is to > > return > > > > > > number of citys with jan prices in a set of ranges > > > etc > > > number of citys with first prices in a set of ranges > > > etc > > > > > > install is 1.4.1 running in weblogic > > > > > > Any ideas ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee C > > > > > >
