Examine Facets proposal about examine HOT 29 OPEN

@nikcio I started having a look through all this yesterday and so far all I can say is what an amazing job you've done so far. I'll keep reviewing over this week and we can determine if there are any tweaks necessary. @nzdev also thanks a ton for your recent PRs and help. Hopefully can get this all merged in for xmas/NY and get what will most likely be a new major release out.

from examine.

@bergmania in Apache Lucene Faceted Search User's Guide there's written the following under 2.2 Facet Associations

So far we've discussed categories as binary features, where a document either belongs to a category, or not.

While counts are useful in most situations, they are sometimes not sufficiently informative for the user, with respect to deciding which subcategory is more important to display.

For this, the facets package allows to associate a value with a category. The search time interpretation of the associated value is application dependent. For example, a possible interpretation is as a match level (e.g., confidence level). This value can then be used so that a document that is very weakly associated with a certain category will only contribute little to this category's aggregated weight.

So it's possible to use this feature to get floating values. I'm not quite sure myself excatly how this is configured and used so I mostly just based the value type off the FacetResult type from the Lucene.Net.Facet package because it's the output of the different facet readers in Lucene.NET.

from examine.

@nikcio Sorry to keep you waiting on this one, I have all of these starred in my inbox and will get to them soon, just a bit swamped this week.

from examine.

Added support for efficient deep paging (SearchAfter) for faceted and non faceted search #321.

from examine.

@dealloc I believe #311 is very close to being done. Just waiting for the stars to align😅🤞

(I'm a little unsure what we are waiting on to be honest 😬😅)

from examine.

Wow @nikcio 🤩

Good work on this proposal :)

From a user point of view, I also like the approach 2 the most, but it requires more of the implementations.

Sorry for my lack of knowledge, but in what case will IFacetValue.Value not be an integer/long?

from examine.

@Shazwazza I've created some PR's that could implement this proposal and add some great functionality / Documentation to Examine. Please let me know if I can do anything to help the PR's along.

PRs:
#311 (Facet implementation)
#312 (XML docs on facets and in the project where missing)
#313 (Nullable feature for project and facets feature)

from examine.

WIP https://github.com/nzdev/Examine/tree/v3/feature/facet-taxonomy Facet Taxonomy Index support. Needed for Hierarchical facets. Also is something like 20%-25% faster according to Lucene.Net docs.

from examine.

Has there been an update on this?

from examine.