You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by "Commit Tag Bot (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2013/03/22 17:45:16 UTC
[jira] [Commented] (SOLR-3793) duplicate (deleted) documents
included in result set when using field faceting with fq
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3793?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13610907#comment-13610907 ]
Commit Tag Bot commented on SOLR-3793:
--------------------------------------
[branch_4x commit] Yonik Seeley
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1381569
SOLR-3793: use livedocs when caching big terms
> duplicate (deleted) documents included in result set when using field faceting with fq
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-3793
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3793
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 4.0-BETA
> Reporter: Hoss Man
> Assignee: Yonik Seeley
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 4.0
>
> Attachments: SOLR-3793.patch
>
>
> Günter Hipler reported on the solr-user mailing list that he was seeing inconsistencies in facet counts compared to the numFound when drilling down onto those facets (using "fq") - in particular: when adding an "fq" such as `fq={!term+f%3DnavNetwork}nebis`, the resulting numFound was higher then the number of docs reported by the facet constraint for nebis in the base request.
> I've been able to trivially reproduce this using the example data from Solr 4.0-BETA, trunk@r1381400, and branch_4x@r1381400 (details in comment to follow)
> Important things to note from Günter's email thread with his assessment of the problem...
> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-solr-user/201208.mbox/%3CCAM_U7jfDpNrGfmWmNtNACHCDCJw4YB-rLBBvRW_WP_jdOb_cgw@mail.gmail.com%3E
> bq. The behaviour is not consistent. Some of the facets provide the correct result, some not. What I can't say for sure: The behaviour was correct (if I'm not wrong) once the whole index was newly created. After running some updates I got these results.
> bq. I'm going to setup a new index with the Lucene 4.0 version from March (to be more exactly: it's version 4.0-2012-03-09_11-29-20) to see what are the results even in case of frequent updates ... the version deployed in march doesn't contain the error I now come across in Beta4.0
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org