Re: Request for naming help

[Adrien Grand <jp...@gmail.com>]

Sorry Marc, I had missed your message. This is what I meant indeed.

On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 4:36 PM Greg Miller <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> OK, great! Thanks Marc. I plan on merging the PR today.
>
> Cheers,
> -Greg
>
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 3:23 PM Marc D'Mello <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> I'm also OK merging as is since this is a new feature and doesn't affect any of the current functionality. I also think there are no glaring issues with the API in its current state. However, I do think that merging the range and rangeonrange functionality makes sense and I like Adrien's suggestion of providing factory methods. I think if we merge in its current state we should create a new issue to refactor the range and rangeonrange faceting package into one and follow the RangeFieldQuery model more closely.
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 2:58 PM Greg Miller <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey Marc-
>>>
>>> I don't want to speak for Adrien as he might have something different in mind, but I think that's more-or-less the idea. I'm not sure the factory methods belong on the LongRange/DoubleRange classes, or if separate classes should be created for this purpose (which is more how I thought of it)?
>>>
>>> To do this cleanly though, I'd really like us to try to consolidate all the "range related" faceting functionality into one java package and consolidate the API a bit. As part of this, I think we can be a little smarter about not duplicating the "range" classes themselves.
>>>
>>> All this said, given that I think your "range on range" faceting PR is ready to be merged as it currently exists, and has been through a number of iteration already, I'm OK if we want to merge that work as it stands and follow up with revisiting the API/naming/etc. as a future project. What do you think?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Greg
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 7:23 PM Marc D'Mello <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm a bit unsure about what is being suggested. Is the idea to rename range#LongRange and rangeonrange#LongRange to LongFieldFacets and LongRangeFacets respectively and stick the static getters in there? In that case, I also think that the idea makes a lot of sense and that it would match our current range query API much better.
>>>>
>>>> In addition, looking at document#LongRange, there are queries like newContainsQuery() and newWithinQuery() that we can probably mimic to avoid exposing RangeFieldQuery.QueryType to the user.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 5:04 PM Greg Miller <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the suggestion Adrien. I like this idea! Marc- what do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> We might need to rework the package structure under the facets module to make this clean, but that might not be a terrible thing anyway. The existing sub-packages will make it challenging to get the visibility right. I think it would be ideal to flatten the package so we can reduce visibility of the class definitions and only expose the factory methods.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Greg
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 01:18 Adrien Grand <jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if the facets actually require a different name, since they
>>>>>> look to me like a generalization of range facets for range fields,
>>>>>> while we previously only supported range facets on numeric fields. We
>>>>>> could keep calling them range facets?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe we could use the same model we used for queries by not exposing
>>>>>> query classes to users and providing factory methods, e.g. we could
>>>>>> have something like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> public class LongFieldFacets {
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   public static Facets getRangeFacetCounts(String field,
>>>>>> FacetsCollector hits, LongRange... ranges) {
>>>>>>     return new LongRangeFacetCounts(...);
>>>>>>   }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> public class LongRangeFacets {
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   // same function name
>>>>>>   public static Facets getRangeFacetCounts(String field,
>>>>>> FacetsCollector hits, RangeFieldQuery.QueryType queryType,
>>>>>> LongRange... ranges) {
>>>>>>     return new LongRangeOnRangeFacetCounts(...);
>>>>>>   }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We'd still need to give a name for these classes, but the name would
>>>>>> be less important since these class names would be only for ourselves.
>>>>>> Users would never see them and refer to this new functionality as
>>>>>> range facets on range fields?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 10:11 PM Gus Heck <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > In that case, maybe "Range Logic Faceting" ?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Relation seems too broad and too overloaded elsewhere, makes me think of RDBMS, related-ness, joins and such via word associations.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 3:27 PM Greg Miller <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Thank for the suggestion! I like the descriptiveness of it. My only hesitation is that is supports more than range intersection based on the provided QueryType instance (e.g., within, contains). I _imagine_ that intersection will be most common, but I don’t really know of course. I thought about generalizing your suggestion to something like “Range Relation Faceting,” but fear that would be confusing.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Thanks again!
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Cheers,
>>>>>> >> -Greg
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 10:19 Gus Heck <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Maybe "Range Intersect Faceting"?
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 1:11 PM Greg Miller <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Folks-
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Naming is hard! (But you all know that already).
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Marc D'Mello and I have been working on a new faceting implementation that's meant to complement Lucene's existing range-relation queries (e.g., LongRange#newIntersectsQuery, DoubleRange#newContainsQuery, LongRangeDocValuesField#newSlowIntersectsQuery, etc.). Well, I should say Marc is working on the change and I'm just providing nit-picky feedback on his PR, which is here: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/11901. The general idea of this feature is to allow users to get facet counts for these sorts of range-relation filters before they're applied. For example, if a user is indexing ranges with their documents, they may have a set of query-ranges they want to facet on, based on some range relationship (e.g., intersection, contains, etc.).
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> As a concrete example, imagine that documents contain a price range (maybe a document represents some e-commerce product but the price varies based on some configuration options), and a user wants to build a price range filter that applies filtering based on whether-or-not the two ranges intersect (i.e., DoubleRange#newIntersectsQuery to apply a price range filter). This user wants faceting capabilities over the different price ranges they want to make available, so they need a way to facet over a list of provided query-ranges, based on the "intersect" relationship with the doc-encoded ranges. That's what Marc's "RangeOnRange" faceting is trying to accomplish.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> In my opinion, the PR is really close to being ready (thanks again Marc!), but I'm wondering if we can come up with a more descriptive name. As it currently stands, the feature is termed "RangeOnRange Faceting," which feels just a bit wonky to me. That said, I can't really come up with anything better.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> ** Does anyone have suggestions on a better name? **
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Any / all suggestions appreciated! (And of course, any other input on the PR is welcome if anyone is interested).
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> >>>> -Greg
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> --
>>>>>> >>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work)
>>>>>> >>> http://www.the111shift.com (play)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > --
>>>>>> > http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work)
>>>>>> > http://www.the111shift.com (play)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Adrien
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>>


-- 
Adrien

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org