I'm not sure why, but it looks like this fails in some cases. Here is
an issue I am running into
#attributes are "brand", "engine" and "transmission"
str = 'brand Acura engine v6 '
@facets = Product.facets :conditions=>{:combined=>
str, :is_published=>1}
@products = @facets.for
#...@facets returns a count of 5 for "transmission auto"
str = 'brand Acura engine v6 transmission auto'
@facets = Product.facets :conditions=>{:combined=>
str, :is_published=>1}
@products = @facets.for
#...@products returns 2 vs the expected 5.
I'm going to assume at this point, that this method just so "happens"
to work for you, but it doesn't seem like it works as a general
solution. I've tried different formats for the combined column, along
with different conditions strs but it looks likes it works ~80% of the
time.
Anyone have ideas? Although this definitely feels like a "hack" if I
can get the last 20% working I have no issue with using this as a
solution(at least in the short term)
On Nov 3, 9:17 am, James Earl <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What I meant by "search on one field, and get facets from another",
> was that when someone clicks on a facet, there's nothing that requires
> you to use that value on the same facet field. For example, if
> someone clicks on the color 'Brown', you don't have to pass it to the
> color field.
>
> Model.search(:conditions => {:color_size_width => 'Brown'})
>
> Your facets are retrieved separately from the search. You don't even
> have to narrow your facets if you don't want to.
>
> Model.facets(:facets => [:color, :size, :width])
>
> James
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "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,JamesEarl<[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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
