No. But probably we can find another way to do what you want. Please describe the problem and include some "numbers" to give us an idea of the sizes that you are handling. Number of documents, size of the index, etc.
Thanks Emmanuel 2012/2/29 Michael Jakl <jakl.mich...@gmail.com>: > Our Solr started to throw the following exception when requesting the > facets of a multivalued field holding a lot of terms. > > SEVERE: org.apache.solr.common.SolrException: Too many values for > UnInvertedField faceting on field topic > at > org.apache.solr.request.UnInvertedField.uninvert(UnInvertedField.java:390) > at > org.apache.solr.request.UnInvertedField.<init>(UnInvertedField.java:180) > at > org.apache.solr.request.UnInvertedField.getUnInvertedField(UnInvertedField.java:871) > at > org.apache.solr.request.SimpleFacets.getTermCounts(SimpleFacets.java:287) > at > org.apache.solr.request.SimpleFacets.getFacetFieldCounts(SimpleFacets.java:319) > at > org.apache.solr.handler.component.FacetComponent.process(FacetComponent.java:72) > at > org.apache.solr.handler.component.SearchHandler.handleRequestBody(SearchHandler.java:193) > at > org.apache.solr.handler.RequestHandlerBase.handleRequest(RequestHandlerBase.java:131) > at org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore.execute(SolrCore.java:1373) > at > org.apache.solr.core.QuerySenderListener.newSearcher(QuerySenderListener.java:54) > at org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore$4.call(SolrCore.java:1198) > at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask$Sync.innerRun(FutureTask.java:303) > at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.run(FutureTask.java:139) > at > java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.runTask(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:886) > at > java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:909) > at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:662) > > Is there a way around it, maybe a setting to increase the limit? > Using facet.method=enum, as suggested in a thread in 2009, is far too > slow, at least in the experiments I did. > > I'm using Solr 3.5.0 on Linux (192GB RAM), so faceting was pretty fast > after an initial cache warming. > > Cheers, > Michael