"search on one field, and get facets from another". I see the approach... In my particular case its going to be difficult because my actual data model has about 15 facets. Before I go down a road of futility, I wanted to maintain a free text + facet search. If I now use search as a combined-facet-string, I think I lose the ability to do that correct?
On Nov 3, 7:50 am, James Earl <[email protected]> wrote: > What you're wanting to do is should be possible within your Product > index. It sounds similar to the problem I had? See my most recent > post on indexing dependent columns. The one thing that helped me was > to remember that you can search on one field, and get facets from > another. You'd end up indexing not only 'color', 'size', and 'width', > but also an addition field containing those fields joined together. > You'd then search on the combined field, and facet on the individual > fields. I'm just starting to test out this method. I'd be interested > to know which way ends up working better for you. > > James > > On Oct 29, 1:22 pm, Alan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Wondering how best to handle the following situation: > > > Product has many Shoe_Option(example class name to illustrate type of > > data model) where shoe options have the attributes of color, size and > > width. > > > I want to do a search on products that have shoe options that have > > "brown" for color and "wide" for width. > > > If I define index at the Product level(attempting to find products > > with children that match), my result set of products is off, because > > it will match products that might not have a child option that has > > both brown AND wide.... It will simply match if there is a one child > > shoe option with "wide" and at least one other child shoe option with > > "brown". > > > What I am really looking for is an individual Shoe Option with BOTH of > > these attributes. > > > Ok, so the obvious next thought would be to define the index at the > > Shoe Option. That's great except, that it return a list of Shoe > > Options, when I want products... Obviously I can manipulate the TS > > result set, but I would like to do this at a lower level so there > > isn't unnecessary processing. > > > Anyone have tips on how to do this with TS? Let me know if my example > > is not clear... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thinking Sphinx" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
