lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ryan McKinley" <ryan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 'accumulate' copyField for faceting
Date Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:56:33 GMT
On 3/1/07, Mike Klaas <mike.klaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/1/07, Ryan McKinley <ryantxu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Am i missing something?
>
> I think you're missing that the parameter that matters is the number
> of unique values on which you facet.  Whether they come from a
> single-valued, tokenized field, or a multi-valued, non-tokenized
> field, makes to difference.
>

aaaah.  that makes sense.  thanks

I just looked at this bit from SimpleFacets.java:

if (sf.multiValued() || ft.isTokenized() || ft instanceof BoolField) {
  counts = getFacetTermEnumCounts(...
} else {
  // TODO: future logic could use filters instead of the fieldcache if
  // the number of terms in the field is small enough.
  counts = getFieldCacheCounts(...
}

If i understand it correct, with a large number of terms, it *is*
better if they are single-valued, non-tokenized fields.  But that does
not help the case i am considering.


> I'm using faceting on a multi-valued field with ~70 unique values, and
> it is quite fast, once the filters have been cached.
>

Well, I'll let you all know how it goes to facet on the (>70)
cities/counties in the united states!

thanks
ryan

Mime
View raw message