Object Storage

 Date Refinement delivers logical OR result set?

  • HV Object Storage
  • Hitachi Content Intelligence HCI
Christian Schausberger's profile image
Christian Schausberger posted 01-10-2019 15:42

Hi, we just hit something odd. We are looking at a email data set and want to look for certain fields..

We filter out a recipient: 2 results. We add a refinement per date picker: 5520 results. The 2 mails are at the top though.

If we remove the recipient the result set stays at 5520.

So it seems this is a logical OR. I would be under the impression a refinement should be a logical AND instead.

Are we doing something wrong in our index, did we hit a bug, or is this working as designed?

Thanks,

Christian


#HitachiContentIntelligenceHCI
Jonathan Chinitz's profile image
Jonathan Chinitz posted 01-10-2019 16:20

Testing this out on my system, date refinements happen first. All emails between date A and B will show up and the facets for the results will show up as well. Then you can select one or more facets without changing the dates and your result set will adjust accordingly.

Eckhard Roeser's profile image
Eckhard Roeser posted 01-10-2019 16:30

Yes. This is true. But Christian wants NOT to use the facets because in case he is after a certain Email sender in a 200k employees company he doesn't want to have all of these users faceted and pick them from there. hence, he wants to define the sender name in the query field - but only for the last week for instance.

This is what we have discussed today on the phone.

Jared Cohen's profile image
Jared Cohen posted 01-14-2019 19:11

Hi Christian,

I've tested and debugged this some myself. Your assumption of how this should work is correct. This is an error in our Search UI with how we are putting together the query along with the refinement fields.

Your typed query is being treated as optional, when it would effectively be a required clause if you weren't using refinements. There is a workaround for this, which is to place '+(' and ')' around your query to make it required. For example, change your query from "Christian" to "+(Christian)". The refinements are being treated as required (as they should be).

We'll look at fixing this in our Search UI in an upcoming release.

Hope this helps,

-Jared

Christian Schausberger's profile image
Christian Schausberger posted 01-15-2019 14:23

Thanks Jared for confirming. It's good that there is a workaround until the fix is there.

BR

Christian