Missing GROUP_BY support in Multisearch requests

[jarto666]

Can support for group_by parameter in multisearch requests be implemented?

[Spaggel]

I was also trying to get grouped results. You can do something like this:

var query = new GroupedSearchParameters("search term", "query_field", "GROUP_BY_FIELD"); # GROUP_BY_FIELD must be a facet field
var searchResult = await client.SearchGrouped<Product>("collection_name", query);
foreach (var result in searchResult.GroupedHits)
{
    foreach (var resultHit in result.Hits)
    {
        Console.WriteLine(resultHit.Document.Id + ": " + resultHit.Document.Title);   
    }
}

[jarto666]

Just for clarification: ideally it should be flexible to support making both - regular and grouped requests in the same scope of multisearch.

Thanks!

[jarto666]

@Spaggel I need not only grouped results, but also make a couple of other ones in the scope of a single multisearch request.

See: https://typesense.org/docs/27.0/api/federated-multi-search.html

[Spaggel]

@jarto666 is this what you're looking for? https://github.com/DAXGRID/typesense-dotnet#multi-search-documents

[jarto666]

@Spaggel Yes, but current MultiSearchParameters implementation does not support GroupBy

[jarto666]

@runeanielsen please give your thoughts on implementation.

So, we could add those to MultiSearchParameters or try to inherit those 3 from GroupedSearchParameters (notice group_missing_values which is also missing from current codebase). Though, inheritance would also require revision of GroupedSearchParameters constructors, since groupBy in this case would become optional.

[JsonPropertyName("group_by")]
public string GroupBy { get; set; }

[JsonPropertyName("group_limit")]
public int? GroupLimit { get; set; }

[JsonPropertyName("group_missing_values")]
public bool? GroupMissingValues { get; set; }

And this would allow us to simply extend MultiSearchResult with GroupedHits:

public record MultiSearchResult
{
// ...
[JsonPropertyName("grouped_hits")]
public IReadOnlyList<GroupedHit> GroupedHits { get; init; }
}

Not the cleanest solution architecturally, the main issue with those parameters duplication, but up for you to consider it. Tested and it's working.

Thanks!

[runeanielsen]

Hi @jarto666,

I'll take a look as soon as possible, I am a bit busy right now.

[runeanielsen]

@jarto666 I've released a new version (7.19.0). Thank you for you contribution. :)

// Rune