Hi, Stefan.
I'm just thinking loud. Let's say we join FromDoc with (FromID, FromFK) to
ToDoc via ToDoc.ID=FromFK.
Results are ToDocs obviously. But if we count facet of FromFK over
fromQuery, its' values matches to ToDoc.IDs, then we can sub-facet (or
nested facet) by FromIDs that gives us full rel
You're welcome!
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 10:48 AM Adarsh Sunilkumar <
adarshsunilkuma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Thanks for your information.
>
>
> Thanks&Regards,
> Adarsh Sunilkumar
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020, 20:15 Michael McCandless
>
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your information.
Thanks&Regards,
Adarsh Sunilkumar
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020, 20:15 Michael McCandless
wrote:
> Ahh, yes is does! That is the change that made Lucene catch this mis-use,
> whereas previously it would silently throw things away (term frequencies
> and positio
Ahh, yes is does! That is the change that made Lucene catch this mis-use,
whereas previously it would silently throw things away (term frequencies
and positions).
If you want to simply continue throwing things away like Lucene did before,
without rebuilding your index, switch your indexing to Ind
Thanks for the replies.
@Mike: Yes, I think the idea is to run separate queries for each of the
resulting hits, as you described. I am concerned about the performance
implications of going down this route, especially when dealing with large
result sets.
@Mikhail: Thanks for the suggestion! I actu
