lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthew Runo <>
Subject Re: Facets that match exactly a filter query..
Date Sat, 14 Jul 2007 00:23:53 GMT
Wow, thank you for that response. Yes, that is correct, I'd like only  
to show filters that will actually change the results when clicked on.

What do you mean, compare the counts?

Do you mean compare the number of results for the facet to the total  
number of results found, and if they're the same, don't show it?

I'm just trying to be explicit for others benefit if they happen upon  
this thread in the future =p

  | Matthew Runo
  | Zappos Development
  | 702-943-7833

On Jul 13, 2007, at 5:15 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:

> : The issue here is that, even though I've already clicked on the
> : "General Sport Eyewear" facet, I still get that as an option in the
> : results. It seems that SOLR might be able to exclude this from the
> : facets on the basis of an exact match to the filter query I'm
> : running.. but I'm not sure.
> Within a given facet.field, ther is no easy way for the faceting  
> code to
> know that you've already filtered a particular constraint for that  
> field
> -- the set returned for that constraint might be the same as the main
> result set -- but that may be true for other reasosn as well 9it might
> just be a coincidence)
> that said: we could make an option to have Solr supress any  
> constraints in
> that situation -- this wouldn't technically be solving the "don't  
> give me
> counts for constraints on a facet.field if i'm already filtering on  
> those
> constraints" problem, but it would solve the related "don't show me  
> counts
> for constraints where the constraint does not alter the result set"
> in your situation it would mean that "General Sport Eyewear" would no
> longer be listed -- but neither woud "Eyewear" or "Sport" (since in
> the context of the current result set which is already narrowed to the
> subset of "General Sport Eyewear" they would not further narrow the  
> set)
> ...but i suspect that's the behavior you really want anyway.
> : Is this something I will need to handle in my perl, or is it
> : something that can be worked out via SOLR? Obviously, we don't  
> want a
> for now it's something you'd need to do in on the client side ...
> definitely nothing in Solr to solve this for you at the moment
> (note: you don't have to actually look at the filters that are  
> applied,
> you can just compare the counts and ignore anything where hte count  
> is hte
> same as the total number of results)
> -Hoss

View raw message