Combining edismax Parser with Block Join Parent Query Parser

Hello Guys, Does Solr support edismax parser with Block Join Parent Query Parser? If yes then could you provide me the syntax or point me to some reference document? And how does it affect the performance? I am working on a search screen in an eCommerce application's backend. The requirement

Re: Developing update processor/Query Parser

;> > data, >> > > > and then this component might be lookedup from QParser and >> > UpdateFactory. >> > > > Overall, it seems like embedding logic into Solr core, which rarely >> > works >> > > > well. >> > > > >> > &g

Re: Developing update processor/Query Parser

arely > > works > > > > well. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 8:00 PM Vincenzo D'Amore > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > I've started to

Re: Developing update processor/Query Parser

t; UpdateFactory. > > > Overall, it seems like embedding logic into Solr core, which rarely > works > > > well. > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 8:00 PM Vincenzo D'Amore > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > >

RE: Unexpected results using Block Join Parent Query Parser

Alright, that solved the problem. Thank you very much! Tor-Magne Stien Hagen -Original Message- From: Mikhail Khludnev Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 12:13 PM To: solr-user Subject: Re: Unexpected results using Block Join Parent Query Parser Ok. My fault. Old sport, you know. When

Re: Developing update processor/Query Parser

> > > I've started to work on a couple of components very tight together. > > > An update processor that writes few fields in the solr index and a > Query > > > Parser that, well, then reads such fields from the index. > > > > > > Such components shar

Re: Developing update processor/Query Parser

very tight together. > > An update processor that writes few fields in the solr index and a Query > > Parser that, well, then reads such fields from the index. > > > > Such components share few configuration parameters together, I'm asking > if > > there is a patte

Re: Unexpected results using Block Join Parent Query Parser

udnev > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 2:14 PM > To: solr-user > Subject: Re: Unexpected results using Block Join Parent Query Parser > > Jan, thanks for the clarification. > Sure you can use {!parent which=class:section} for return children, which > has a garndchildren matching su

RE: Unexpected results using Block Join Parent Query Parser

Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 2:14 PM To: solr-user Subject: Re: Unexpected results using Block Join Parent Query Parser Jan, thanks for the clarification. Sure you can use {!parent which=class:section} for return children, which has a garndchildren matching subordinate query. Note: there's

Re: Developing update processor/Query Parser

wrote: > Hi all, > > I've started to work on a couple of components very tight together. > An update processor that writes few fields in the solr index and a Query > Parser that, well, then reads such fields from the index. > > Such components share few configuration parameters

Developing update processor/Query Parser

Hi all, I've started to work on a couple of components very tight together. An update processor that writes few fields in the solr index and a Query Parser that, well, then reads such fields from the index. Such components share few configuration parameters together, I'm asking

Re: Unexpected results using Block Join Parent Query Parser

g? > > > > Tor-Magne Stien Hagen > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Mikhail Khludnev > > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 10:01 AM > > To: solr-user > > Subject: Re: Unexpected results using Block Join Parent Query Parser > > > > He

Re: Unexpected results using Block Join Parent Query Parser

; From: Mikhail Khludnev > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 10:01 AM > To: solr-user > Subject: Re: Unexpected results using Block Join Parent Query Parser > > Hello, > > Please check warning box titled Using which > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt

RE: Unexpected results using Block Join Parent Query Parser

: Re: Unexpected results using Block Join Parent Query Parser Hello, Please check warning box titled Using which https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flucene.apache.org%2Fsolr%2Fguide%2F8_5%2Fother-parsers.html%23block-join-parent-query-parserdata=02%7C01%7Ctsh%40dips.no

Re: Unexpected results using Block Join Parent Query Parser

Hello, Please check warning box titled Using which https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/8_5/other-parsers.html#block-join-parent-query-parser On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:01 AM Tor-Magne Stien Hagen wrote: > Hi, > > I have indexed the following nested document in Solr: > > {

Unexpected results using Block Join Parent Query Parser

uot;, "children": [ { "id": "5", "class": "instruction" } ] } ] } Given the following query: {!parent which='id:4'}id:3 I expect the result to be

Re: strange behavior of solr query parser

/bf9db95f218f49bac8e7971eb953a9fd9d13a2f0#diff-269ae02e56283ced3ce781cce21b3147R563 sincerely hongtai 送信元: "Staley, Phil R - DCF" Reply-To: "d...@lucene.apache.org" 日付: 2020年3月2日 月曜日 22:38 宛先: solr_user lucene_apache , "d...@lucene.apache.org" 件名: Re: strange behavior of solr query parser

Question About Solr Query Parser

Hello, Community: I have a question about interpreting a parsed query from Debug Query. I used Solr 8.4.1 and LuceneQueryParser. I was learning the behavior of ManagedSynonymFilter because I was curious about how "ManagedSynonymGraphFilter" fails to generate a graph. So, I try to interpret the

Re: strange behavior of solr query parser

lucene_apache Cc: d...@lucene.apache.org Subject: strange behavior of solr query parser Hi, Our team found a strange behavior of solr query parser. In some specific cases, some conditional clauses on unindexed field will be ignored. for query like, q=A:1 OR B:1 OR A:2 OR B:2 if field B

strange behavior of solr query parser

Hi, Our team found a strange behavior of solr query parser. In some specific cases, some conditional clauses on unindexed field will be ignored. for query like, q=A:1 OR B:1 OR A:2 OR B:2 if field B is not indexed(but docValues="true"), "B:1" will be lost. but if you wri

Re: Graph Query Parser Syntax

Hi All , any suggestions? On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 5:20 PM sambasivarao giddaluri < sambasiva.giddal...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > In our project we have to use multiple graph queries with AND and OR > conditions but graph query parser does not work for the below scenario

Graph Query Parser Syntax

Hi All, In our project we have to use multiple graph queries with AND and OR conditions but graph query parser does not work for the below scenario, can any one suggest how to overcome this kind of problem? this is stopping our pre prod release . we are also using traversalFilter but our usecase

Extending SOLR default/eDisMax query parser with Span queries functionalities

Hi, We would like to extend SOLR default (named 'lucene' per: https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/6_6/the-standard-query-parser.html) or eDisMax query parser with additional functionality of Lucene Span queries in order to allow via standard parsers to execute position search (SpanFirst, etc

Re: Using Deep Paging with Graph Query Parser

: Is there a way to use combine paging's cursor feature with graph query : parser? it should work just fie -- the cursorMark logic doesn't care what query parser you use. Is there a particular problem you are running into when you send requests using both? -Hoss http://www.lucidworks.com/

Graph Query Parser with pagination

Hi All, Is it possible to search on a index using graph query parser with pagination available . ex: 1 <--2<--3 1 <--4<--5 1 <--6<--7 and so on 1 is parent of 2,4 and 2 is parent of 3 and 4 is parent of 5 1 is doc type A and 2,4 are of type doc B and 3,5 are of type C simil

Using Deep Paging with Graph Query Parser

Is there a way to use combine paging's cursor feature with graph query parser? Background: I have a hierarchical data structure that is split into N different flat json docs and updated (inserted) into solr with from/to fields. Using the from/to join syntax a graph query is needed since

Re: igain query parser generating invalid output

Hi, I have created the bug report in Jira and attached the patch to it. Kind Regards, Peter On 12/10/2019 2:34 am, Joel Bernstein wrote: This sounds like a great patch. I can help with the review and commit after the jira is created. Thanks! Joel On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 1:06 AM Peter

Re: igain query parser generating invalid output

This sounds like a great patch. I can help with the review and commit after the jira is created. Thanks! Joel On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 1:06 AM Peter Davie < peter.da...@convergentsolutions.com.au> wrote: > Hi, > > I apologise in advance for the length of this email, but I want to share > my

igain query parser generating invalid output

Hi, I apologise in advance for the length of this email, but I want to share my discovery steps to make sure that I haven't missed anything during my investigation... I am working on a classification project and will be using the classify(model()) stream function to classify documents.  I

Re: more like this query parser with faceting

wrote: > > > Hi David, > > Thanks the fast reply. Am I right that I can combine fq with mlt only if > I > > use more like this as a query parser? > > > > Is there a way to achieve the same with mlt as a request handler? > > Roland > > &g

Re: more like this query parser with faceting

should be fine, https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/MoreLikeThisHandler for more info On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 2:49 PM Szűcs Roland wrote: > Hi David, > Thanks the fast reply. Am I right that I can combine fq with mlt only if I > use more like this as a que

Re: more like this query parser with faceting

Hi David, Thanks the fast reply. Am I right that I can combine fq with mlt only if I use more like this as a query parser? Is there a way to achieve the same with mlt as a request handler? Roland David Hastings ezt írta (időpont: 2019. aug. 12., H, 20:44): > The easiest way will be to p

Re: more like this query parser with faceting

The easiest way will be to pass in a filter query (fq) On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 2:40 PM Szűcs Roland wrote: > Hi All, > > Is there any tutorial or example how to use more like this functionality > when we have some other constraints set by the user through faceting > parameters like price range,

more like this query parser with faceting

Hi All, Is there any tutorial or example how to use more like this functionality when we have some other constraints set by the user through faceting parameters like price range, or product category for example? Cheers, Roland

Re: KeywordTokenizerFactory and Standard Query Parser

g only for the number on that field. So one process > will attempt to send in the following query > > > > > > q=testField:(34 27) > > However, this will not pickup the document with the example testField > value above in version 7.4.0. Passing it as an fq parameter has

KeywordTokenizerFactory and Standard Query Parser

understanding was that the query parser should split the (34 27) into search terms "34" and "27" before the query analyzer chain is even entered. Is that not correct anymore? Thanks, Chris

Re: Query of death? Collapsing Query Parser - Solr 7.5

OK.. The intent is to collapse on the field domain.. Here's a query that works fine and the way I want with the Collapsing query parser.. /select?defType=dismax=score,content,description,keywords,title={!collapse%20field=domain%20nullPolicy=expand}=content^0.05%20description^0.03%20keywords

Re: Query of death? Collapsing Query Parser - Solr 7.5

nsider to be an "extreme query", in this context? On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 10:06 PM IZaBEE_Keeper wrote: > Hi.. > > I'm wondering if I've found a query of death or just a really expensive > query.. It's killing my solr with OOM.. > > Collapsing query parser using: > fq={!colla

Query of death? Collapsing Query Parser - Solr 7.5

Hi.. I'm wondering if I've found a query of death or just a really expensive query.. It's killing my solr with OOM.. Collapsing query parser using: fq={!collapse field=domain nullPolicy=expand} Everything works fine using words & phrases.. However as soon as there are numbers invo

Re: graph query parser: depth dependent score?

Dear reader, I've found an different solution for my problem and don't need a depth dependent score anymore. Kind regards, Jochen Am 19.02.19 um 14:42 schrieb Jochen Barth: Dear reader, I'll have a hierarchical graph "like a book": { id:solr_doc1; title:book } { id:solr_doc2; title:chapter;

graph query parser: depth dependent score?

Dear reader, I'll have a hierarchical graph "like a book": { id:solr_doc1; title:book } { id:solr_doc2; title:chapter; parent_ids: solr_doc1 } { id:solr_doc3; title:subchapter; parent_ids: solr_doc2 } etc. Now to match all docs with "title" and "chapter" I could do: +_query_:"{!graph

Re: Terms Query Parser: filtering on null and strings with whitespace.

Oh yeah, my pet peeve. This is the cure. (*:* AND -department_name:[* TO *]) OR {!tag=department_name terms f=department_name v='Kirurgisk avdeling'} no comments. On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 1:49 PM Andreas Lønes wrote: > I am experiencing some weird behaviour when using terms query parser wh

Terms Query Parser: filtering on null and strings with whitespace.

I am experiencing some weird behaviour when using terms query parser where I am filtering on documents that has no value for a given field(null) and strings with whitespaces. I can filter on documents not having a value OR having some specific values for the field as long as the value does

Re: How to debug empty ParsedQuery from Edismax Query Parser

t, the Extended Dismax Query Parser hands over portions of the parsing to the Standard Query Parser early on the the parsing process. Following down the rabbit hole, I ended up in SolrQueryParserBase.getPrefixQuery() method. On line 1173 of this method, we have the following statement:

Re: How to debug empty ParsedQuery from Edismax Query Parser

; definition of "/select" in solrconfig.xml. > >> EchoParams=all did not show anything different in the resulting XML from >> SOLR 7.x. > > The parameter requested was "echoParams" and not "EchoParams". There *is* a > difference, and the

Re: How to debug empty ParsedQuery from Edismax Query Parser

t; in solrconfig.xml. EchoParams=all did not show anything different in the resulting XML from SOLR 7.x. The parameter requested was "echoParams" and not "EchoParams".  There *is* a difference, and the latter will not work. I found out something curious yesterday. When I try to for

Re: How to debug empty ParsedQuery from Edismax Query Parser

Well, I was putting that info out there because I am literally hunting down this issue without any guidance. The real problem for still is that the Edismax Query Parser behaves abnormally starting with Version 5 until current giving me empty parsedQuery. Forcing the request through the Lucene

Re: How to debug empty ParsedQuery from Edismax Query Parser

thread posts makes it sound like we are looking for a case where the query parser or something above it is inappropriately eating an exception relating to too many terms. Did 5.x impose a new or reduced limit there? On Wed, Jan 2, 2019, 1:20 PM Kay Wrobel Is there any way I can debug the parser

Re: How to debug empty ParsedQuery from Edismax Query Parser

s=0 QTime=8 > > EchoParams=all did not show anything different in the resulting XML from SOLR > 7.x. > > > I found out something curious yesterday. When I try to force the Standard > query parser on SOLR 7.x using the same query, but adding "defType=lucene" at

Re: How to debug empty ParsedQuery from Edismax Query Parser

found out something curious yesterday. When I try to force the Standard query parser on SOLR 7.x using the same query, but adding "defType=lucene" at the beginning, SOLR 7 raises a SolrException with this message: "analyzer returned too many terms for multiTerm term: ac6023" (f

Re: How to debug empty ParsedQuery from Edismax Query Parser

esults back, but > more importantly, the Query Parser produces an empty parsedQuery. > > > > Here is the same query issued to SOLR 7.6.0 (current version): > > https://pastebin.com/XcNhfdUD <https://pastebin.com/XcNhfdUD> > > > > Notice how "parsedQuery&

Re: How to debug empty ParsedQuery from Edismax Query Parser

On 12/27/2018 10:47 AM, Kay Wrobel wrote: Now starting from SOLR version 5+, I receive zero (0) results back, but more importantly, the Query Parser produces an empty parsedQuery. Here is the same query issued to SOLR 7.6.0 (current version): https://pastebin.com/XcNhfdUD <https://pastebin.

How to debug empty ParsedQuery from Edismax Query Parser

edQuery" has a proper DisjunctionMaxQuery based on the two query fields. Now starting from SOLR version 5+, I receive zero (0) results back, but more importantly, the Query Parser produces an empty parsedQuery. Here is the same query issued to SOLR 7.6.0 (current version): https://pa

Re: switch query parser and solr cloud

Afternoon all, Just to add some closure to this topic in case anybody else stumbles across a similar problem I've managed to resolve my issue by removing the switch query parser from the _appends_ component of the parameter set. so the parameter set changes from this "set":{ &q

Re: switch query parser and solr cloud

ciate your input. Shawn thanks for your comments. Regarding the switch query parser the Hossman has a great description of its use and application here (https://lucidworks.com/2013/02/20/custom-solr-request-params/). PTST is just our performance testing environment and is not important in t

Re: switch query parser and solr cloud

awn Heisey wrote: > > On 9/12/2018 5:47 AM, Dwane Hall wrote: > > Good afternoon Solr brains trust I'm seeking some community advice if > > somebody can spare a minute from their busy schedules. > > > > I'm attempting to use the switch query parser to influence client

Re: switch query parser and solr cloud

On 9/12/2018 5:47 AM, Dwane Hall wrote: Good afternoon Solr brains trust I'm seeking some community advice if somebody can spare a minute from their busy schedules. I'm attempting to use the switch query parser to influence client search behaviour based on a client specified request parameter

switch query parser and solr cloud

Good afternoon Solr brains trust I'm seeking some community advice if somebody can spare a minute from their busy schedules. I'm attempting to use the switch query parser to influence client search behaviour based on a client specified request parameter. Essentially I want the following

Re: Type ahead functionality using complex phrase query parser

t; > -Original Message- > From: Hanjan, Harinder [mailto:harinder.han...@calgary.ca] > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 5:01 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: [EXT] Type ahead functionality using complex phrase query parser > > Hello! > > I can't g

RE: Type ahead functionality using complex phrase query parser

@lucene.apache.org Subject: [EXT] Type ahead functionality using complex phrase query parser Hello! I can't get Solr to give the results I would expect, would appreciate if someone could point me in the right direction here. /select?q={!complexphrase}"gar*" shows me the following terms -

Type ahead functionality using complex phrase query parser

Hello! I can't get Solr to give the results I would expect, would appreciate if someone could point me in the right direction here. /select?q={!complexphrase}"gar*" shows me the following terms -garages -garburator -gardening -gardens -garage -

Re: Solr Default query parser

Thanks Jason and Shawn. It's clear now. Regards Kamal On Tue, Jun 26, 2018, 6:12 PM Jason Gerlowski wrote: > The "Standard Query Parser" _is_ the lucene query parser. They're the > same parser. As Shawn pointed out above, they're also the default, so > if you don't

Re: Solr Default query parser

The "Standard Query Parser" _is_ the lucene query parser. They're the same parser. As Shawn pointed out above, they're also the default, so if you don't specify any defType, they will be used. Though if you want to be explicit and specify it anyway, the value is defType=lucene Ja

Re: Solr Default query parser

Hi Shawn, Thanks for the reply. If "lucene" is the default query parser, then how can we specify Standard Query Parser(QP) in the query. Dismax QP can be specified by defType=dismax and Extended Dismax Qp by defType=edismax, how about for declaration of Standard QP. Regards Kamal O

Re: Sole Default query parser

Hi Kamal, Sorry for the late reply. If you're still unsure, the "lucene" query parser is the default one. The first ref-guide link you posted refers to it almost ubiquitously as the "Standard Query Parser", but it's the same thing as the lucene query parser. (The page doe

Re: Solr Default query parser

On 6/6/2018 9:52 AM, Kamal Kishore Aggarwal wrote: >> What is the default query parser (QP) for solr. >> >> While I was reading about this, I came across two links which looks >> ambiguous to me. It's not clear to me whether Standard is the default QP or >

Re: Solr Default query parser

[Correcting the subject] On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Kamal Kishore Aggarwal < kkroyal@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Guys, > > What is the default query parser (QP) for solr. > > While I was reading about this, I came across two links which looks > ambiguous to me. It's

Sole Default query parser

Hi Guys, What is the default query parser (QP) for solr. While I was reading about this, I came across two links which looks ambiguous to me. It's not clear to me whether Standard is the default QP or Lucene is the default QP or they are same. Below is the screenshot and links which

Re: Block join query parser

[child] has childFilter param. Also, mind about [subquery] On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Ryan Yacyshyn wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm looking for a way to query nested documents that would return the > parent documents along with its child documents nested under it, but only > the child documents

Block join query parser

Hi all, I'm looking for a way to query nested documents that would return the parent documents along with its child documents nested under it, but only the child documents that match the query. The [child] doc transformer comes close, but it returns all child docs. I'm looking for something

RE: change in the Standard Query Parser behavior when migrating from Solr 5 to 7.

To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: change in the Standard Query Parser behavior when migrating from Solr 5 to 7. On 5/9/2018 2:37 PM, Piyush Kumar Nayak wrote: > Same here. "sow" restores the old behavior. This might be a bug.  I'd like someone who has better understanding of t

Re: change in the Standard Query Parser behavior when migrating from Solr 5 to 7.

On 5/9/2018 2:37 PM, Piyush Kumar Nayak wrote: > Same here. "sow" restores the old behavior. This might be a bug.  I'd like someone who has better understanding of the low-level internals to comment before assuming that it's a bug, though.  Sounds like sow=false (default as of 7.0) might be

RE: change in the Standard Query Parser behavior when migrating from Solr 5 to 7.

(WT, SF ...) in 7 list a property (termFrequency = 1) that is missing in 5. Lemme see if I can share the schemas. -Original Message- From: David Hastings [mailto:hastings.recurs...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 1:38 AM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: change in the

Re: change in the Standard Query Parser behavior when migrating from Solr 5 to 7.

sow=true made 7 mimic 5. On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote: > On 5/9/2018 1:25 PM, David Hastings wrote: > > https://pastebin.com/0QUseqrN > > > > here is mine for an example with the exact same behavior > > Can you try the query in the Analysis tab in

Re: change in the Standard Query Parser behavior when migrating from Solr 5 to 7.

On 5/9/2018 1:25 PM, David Hastings wrote: > https://pastebin.com/0QUseqrN > > here is mine for an example with the exact same behavior Can you try the query in the Analysis tab in the admin UI on both versions and see which step in the analysis chain is the point at which the two diverge from

Re: change in the Standard Query Parser behavior when migrating from Solr 5 to 7.

id rather not at least on my part, but in both cases i have: and text as my default field, changed from text_general On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote: > On 5/9/2018 1:25 PM, David Hastings wrote: > > https://pastebin.com/0QUseqrN > > Can you provide

Re: change in the Standard Query Parser behavior when migrating from Solr 5 to 7.

On 5/9/2018 1:25 PM, David Hastings wrote: > https://pastebin.com/0QUseqrN Can you provide the *full* schema for both versions? Thanks, Shawn

Re: change in the Standard Query Parser behavior when migrating from Solr 5 to 7.

https://pastebin.com/0QUseqrN here is mine for an example with the exact same behavior On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote: > On 5/9/2018 12:39 PM, Piyush Kumar Nayak wrote: > > we have recently upgraded from Solr5 to Solr7. I'm running into a change > of

Re: change in the Standard Query Parser behavior when migrating from Solr 5 to 7.

On 5/9/2018 12:39 PM, Piyush Kumar Nayak wrote: > we have recently upgraded from Solr5 to Solr7. I'm running into a change of > behavior that I cannot fathom. > For the term "test3" Solr7 splits the numeric and alphabetical components and > does a simple term search while Solr 5 did a phrase

Re: change in the Standard Query Parser behavior when migrating from Solr 5 to 7.

Strange, I have the exact same results, whats more interesting is the analyzer shows identical for both 5 and 7, so its definetly a change in the LuceneQParser On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:39 PM, Piyush Kumar Nayak wrote: > we have recently upgraded from Solr5 to Solr7.

change in the Standard Query Parser behavior when migrating from Solr 5 to 7.

we have recently upgraded from Solr5 to Solr7. I'm running into a change of behavior that I cannot fathom. For the term "test3" Solr7 splits the numeric and alphabetical components and does a simple term search while Solr 5 did a phrase search.

Re: Query parser problem, using fuzzy search

Am 31.01.18 um 16:30 schrieb David Frese: Am 29.01.18 um 18:05 schrieb Erick Erickson: Try searching with lowercase the word and. Somehow you have to allow the parser to distinguish the two. Oh yeah, the biggest unsolved problem in the ~80 years history of programming languages... NOT ;-)

Re: Query parser problem, using fuzzy search

Am 29.01.18 um 18:05 schrieb Erick Erickson: Try searching with lowercase the word and. Somehow you have to allow the parser to distinguish the two. Oh yeah, the biggest unsolved problem in the ~80 years history of programming languages... NOT ;-) You _might_ be able to try "AND~2" (with

Re: Query parser problem, using fuzzy search

Try searching with lowercase the word and. Somehow you have to allow the parser to distinguish the two. You _might_ be able to try "AND~2" (with quotes) to see if you can get that through the parser. Kind of a hack, but There's also a parameter (depending on the parser) about lowercasing

Query parser problem, using fuzzy search

Hello everybody, how can I formulate a fuzzy query that works for an arbitrary string, resp. is there a formal syntax definition somewhere? I already found by by hand, that field:"val"~2 Is read by the parser, but the fuzzyness seems to get lost. So I write field:val~2 Now if val contain

Re: does the payload_check query parser have support for simple query parser operators?

Erik > > > On Nov 30, 2017, at 02:41, John Anonymous <orro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I would like to use wildcards and fuzzy search with the payload_check > query > > parser. Are these supported? > > > > {!payload_check f=text payloads

Re: does the payload_check query parser have support for simple query parser operators?

No it doesn’t. The payload parsers currently just simple tokenize with no special syntax supported. Erik > On Nov 30, 2017, at 02:41, John Anonymous <orro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I would like to use wildcards and fuzzy search with the payload_check query > parser. A

does the payload_check query parser have support for simple query parser operators?

I would like to use wildcards and fuzzy search with the payload_check query parser. Are these supported? {!payload_check f=text payloads='NOUN'}apple~1 {!payload_check f=text payloads='NOUN'}app* Thanks

LTR feature and proximity search with Block Join Parent query Parser

Hi, I am working on features and my main document ('type:entity') has child documents, some of them contain addresses ('type:entityAddress'). My feature definition: { "store": "store_myStore", "name": "scoreAddressCity", "class": "org.apache.solr.ltr.feature.SolrFeature", "params":{ "q":

Re: Apache 4.9.1 - trouble trying to use complex phrase query parser.

If you'd include the actual error message you get .. it might easier to try and help? -Stefan On Jun 28, 2017 6:24 PM, "Michael Craven" <mcrav...@jhu.edu> wrote: > Hi - > > I am trying to use the complex phrase query parser on my Drupal > installation. Our core

Apache 4.9.1 - trouble trying to use complex phrase query parser.

Hi - I am trying to use the complex phrase query parser on my Drupal installation. Our core is sore 4.9.1, so I thought it should be no problem. Search works fine when I use a local parameter to do a search of type lucene, dismax, or edismax, (a la {!lucene} etc.), but when I try to do

Re: Solr NLS custom query parser

a custom query parser which takes advantage of the entite fields. I have referred the slides and talk- https://www.slideshare.net/lucenerevolution/teofilie-natural-languagesearchinsolreurocon2011 <https://www.slideshare.net/lucenerevolution/teofilie-natural-languagesearchinsolreurocon2011>

Re: Solr NLS custom query parser

configure NLP search with Solr. I am using OpenNLP for the > same.I am able to index the documents and extract named entities and POS > using OpenNLP-UIMA support and also by using a UIMA Update request processor > chain.But I am not able to write a query parser for the same.Is there a >

Solr NLS custom query parser

Hi, I am trying to configure NLP search with Solr. I am using OpenNLP for the same.I am able to index the documents and extract named entities and POS using OpenNLP-UIMA support and also by using a UIMA Update request processor chain.But I am not able to write a query parser for the same.Is

Re: Configure query parser to handle field name case-insensitive

>> >>> Based on your suggestions, I can see the following solutions for our >>problem: >>> >>> 1) Train the users to denote fieldnames in lowercase - they need to >>know the exact field names anyway. >>> 2) Modify (i.e., lowercase) the search term

Re: Configure query parser to handle field name case-insensitive

gt;problem: >> >> 1) Train the users to denote fieldnames in lowercase - they need to >know the exact field names anyway. >> 2) Modify (i.e., lowercase) the search term in the backend (Java) >> 3) Modify (i.e., lowercase) the search term in the frontend (JS) >> 4)

Re: Configure query parser to handle field name case-insensitive

the backend (Java) > 3) Modify (i.e., lowercase) the search term in the frontend (JS) > 4) Modify the Solr query parser (provide a customized implementation) > 5) Define *a lot* of field aliases > 6) Define *a lot* of copy fields > > I assess these solutions to be ordered in decre

AW: Configure query parser to handle field name case-insensitive

to denote fieldnames in lowercase - they need to know the exact field names anyway. 2) Modify (i.e., lowercase) the search term in the backend (Java) 3) Modify (i.e., lowercase) the search term in the frontend (JS) 4) Modify the Solr query parser (provide a customized implementation) 5) Define *a lot

Re: Configure query parser to handle field name case-insensitive

ower case filter (both index and >query). However, our users are confused because they can search for >"id:1" but not for "ID:1". Furthermore, we employ the EDisMax query >parser, so then even get no error message. > >Therefore, I thought it may be sufficient to map

Re: Configure query parser to handle field name case-insensitive

; users are confused because they can search for "id:1" but not for "ID:1". > Furthermore, we employ the EDisMax query parser, so then even get no error > message. > > Therefore, I thought it may be sufficient to map all field names to lower > case at the query

  1   2   3   4   5   >