fix(disjunctive): prefer values of main query for facet count #6445
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This is relevant in two cases: - second query is non-exhaustive - second query is not correct due to facet count after distinct There's still more edge cases left (first query non exhaustive, but second isn't, but that's unlikely) and those are not worse after this PR.
|
This pull request is automatically built and testable in CodeSandbox. To see build info of the built libraries, click here or the icon next to each commit SHA. Latest deployment of this branch, based on commit 4f2b466:
|
Haroenv
commented
Nov 20, 2024
packages/algoliasearch-helper/test/spec/SearchResults/getFacetValues.js
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Haroenv
requested review from
a team,
dhayab and
shaejaz
and removed request for
a team
Haroenv
added
the
🚨 DO NOT MERGE
dhayab
reviewed
Nov 20, 2024
Member
dhayab
left a comment
dhayab
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This works great for disjunctive refinements. Looking at the customer issue again, they experience this on a conjunctive refinement, which is not covered by this fix. Do you want to handle this in a subsequent PR or can you add it here?
Contributor
Author
|
How could they have this issue on a conjunctive facet? there's only one query there |
Member
|
Sorry I was wrong, I thought the menu widget was using conjunctive faceting but it instead is based on hierarchical facets. In that case, we do reattribute the root level count but not in this instance?
|
Contributor
Author
|
@dhayab fixed now for hierarchical too, but only if persistHierarchicalRootCount is true, other cases seemed to break a lot of tests |
Member
|
Nice, thanks! |
dhayab
removed
the
🚨 DO NOT MERGE
Haroenv
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 20, 2025
When doing disjunctive faceting, there are two different sets of results:
1. the results with the filter applied
2. the results without the filter applied
Normally we want to use the facets of result 2, as those don't have the other constraints applied. think for example of this:
```json
[
{
"facetFilters": ["f:alpha"],
"hits": [{ "f": ["alpha", "beta"] }],
"facets": { "f": { "alpha": 1, "beta": 1 } }
},
{
"hits": [{ "f": ["alpha", "beta"] }, { "f": ["beta", "gamma"] }],
"facets": { "f": { "alpha": 1, "beta": 2, "gamma": 1 } }
}
]
```
This was the behaviour before #6445. In #6445 we have swapped the order, to cater for "more tricky" use cases like non-exhaustive second response, less results in second response due to remove words optional or distinct.
Therefore now we take the middle ground: use the highest value. This works for all existing test cases, as well as newly introduced ones that simulate the "array" use case.
see #6482, [CR-7169], #6445.
Haroenv
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 21, 2025
* fix(facets): choose highest value in disjunctive
When doing disjunctive faceting, there are two different sets of results:
1. the results with the filter applied
2. the results without the filter applied
Normally we want to use the facets of result 2, as those don't have the other constraints applied. think for example of this:
```json
[
{
"facetFilters": ["f:alpha"],
"hits": [{ "f": ["alpha", "beta"] }],
"facets": { "f": { "alpha": 1, "beta": 1 } }
},
{
"hits": [{ "f": ["alpha", "beta"] }, { "f": ["beta", "gamma"] }],
"facets": { "f": { "alpha": 1, "beta": 2, "gamma": 1 } }
}
]
```
This was the behaviour before #6445. In #6445 we have swapped the order, to cater for "more tricky" use cases like non-exhaustive second response, less results in second response due to remove words optional or distinct.
Therefore now we take the middle ground: use the highest value. This works for all existing test cases, as well as newly introduced ones that simulate the "array" use case.
see #6482, [CR-7169], #6445.
* bundlesize, unavoidable
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Use the values of the main facet in disjunctive facets
This is relevant in two cases:
There's still more edge cases left (first query non exhaustive, but second isn't, but that's unlikely) and those are not worse after this PR.
Result
disjunctive facets read the count from the first query over the ones from the second query. This is already the case for hierarchical facets.