Hi Erick, Thanks for the reply and sorry, my fault, wasn't clear enough. I was wondering if there was a way to remove terms that would always be zero (because the term came from a document that didn't match the filter query).
Here's an example. I have a bunch of documents with fields 'manufacturer' and 'location'. If I set my filter query to "manufacturer = Sony" and all Sony documents had a value of 'Florida' for location, then I want 'Florida' NOT to show up in my facet field results. Instead, it shows up with a count of zero (and it'll always be zero because of my filter query). Using mincount = 1 doesn't solve my problem because I don't want it to hide zeroes that came from documents that actually pass my filter query. Does that make more sense? On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com>wrote: > That's what faceting does. The facets are only tabulated > for documents that satisfy they query, including all of > the filter queries and anh other criteria. > > Otherwise, facet counts would be the same no matter > what the query was. > > Or I'm completely misunderstanding your question... > > Best, > Erick > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Luis Lebolo <luis.leb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > Is it possible to perform a facet field query on a subset of documents > (the > > subset being defined via a filter query for instance)? > > > > I understand that facet pivoting might work, but it would require that > the > > subset be defined by some field hierarchy, e.g. manufacturer -> price > (then > > only look at the results for the manufacturer I'm interested in). > > > > What if I wanted to define a more complex subset (where the name starts > > with A but ends with Z and some other field is greater than 5 and yet > > another field is not 'x', etc.)? > > > > Ideally I would then define a "facet field constraining query" to include > > only terms from documents that pass this query. > > > > Thanks, > > Luis > > >
