[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-18421?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Prithvi S updated SOLR-18421:
-----------------------------
    Summary: {!child}: childQuery + per-parent childLimit via Lucene 
ParentsChildrenBlockJoinQuery  (was:  Expose Lucene 
ParentsChildrenBlockJoinQuery from {!child} (parent+child query, childLimit per 
parent))

> {!child}: childQuery + per-parent childLimit via Lucene 
> ParentsChildrenBlockJoinQuery
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-18421
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-18421
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: query parsers
>            Reporter: Prithvi S
>            Priority: Major
>
> Lucene 10.4 added ParentsChildrenBlockJoinQuery 
> (https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/14565): match parent docs and child 
> docs in the same block-join query, with an optional childLimitPerParent cap.
> Solr already depends on Lucene 10.4.0 (gradle/libs.versions.toml) and already 
> wraps ToParentBlockJoinQuery / ToChildBlockJoinQuery as \{!parent} / 
> \{!child}, but never uses ParentsChildrenBlockJoinQuery.
> *Current limitation*
> {!child} takes a parent query and returns *all* children of those parents. 
> There is no way to:
> * also filter which children match
> * cap the number of matching children per parent at *query* time
> The [child] transformer \{{limit}} param is response decoration of 
> already-matched parents, not a search-time limit.
> *Proposed API (backward compatible)*
> {code:java}
> q=\{!child parentPath="/" childQuery=$cq childLimit=2}title:solr
> &cq=comments:lucene
> {code}
> Omit childQuery/childLimit -> existing \{!child} behavior.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to