That's impressive answer. I actually wanted to know how exactly query
parser works. I'm actually supposed to collect some fields,values,other
related info and build a solr query. I wanted to know i should use this
queryparser or java code to build solr query. Anyway it looks i've to go
with java
Hi,
I have defined the following edismax query parser:
requestHandler name=/search class=solr.SearchHandler lst
name=defaultsstr name=mm100%/strstr
name=defTypeedismax/strfloat name=tie0.01/floatint
name=ps100/intstr name=q.alt*:*/strstr
name=q.opAND/strstr name=qffield1^2.0 field2/strstr
On 6/25/2014 1:05 AM, Johannes Siegert wrote:
I have defined the following edismax query parser:
requestHandler name=/search class=solr.SearchHandler lst
name=defaultsstr name=mm100%/strstr
name=defTypeedismax/strfloat name=tie0.01/floatint
name=ps100/intstr name=q.alt*:*/strstr
name
Thanks Shawn!
In this case I will use operators everywhere.
Johannes
Am 25.06.2014 15:09, schrieb Shawn Heisey:
On 6/25/2014 1:05 AM, Johannes Siegert wrote:
I have defined the following edismax query parser:
requestHandler name=/search class=solr.SearchHandler lst
name=defaultsstr name
Hi,
I think this might be a silly question but i want to make it clear.
What is query parser...? What does it do.? I know its used for converting
query. But from What to what?what is the input and what is the output of
query parser. And where exactly this feature can be used?
If possible please
question in return is where are you stuck that
you think that knowing what query parser is will move you further
ahead?
Personal website: http://www.outerthoughts.com/
Current project: http://www.solr-start.com/ - Accelerating your Solr proficiency
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Vivekanand Ittigi
vi
of support for
the various Query structures that Lucene can handle: SpanQuery, FuzzyQuery,
PhraseQuery, etc.
We for example use an XML-based query parser. Why (you might well ask!),
well we had an already used and supported query syntax of our own, which
our users understood, so we couldn't use an off
or A
and B or just A B for example), and have different levels of support for
the various Query structures that Lucene can handle: SpanQuery, FuzzyQuery,
PhraseQuery, etc.
We for example use an XML-based query parser. Why (you might well ask!),
well we had an already used and supported query
or
A
and B or just A B for example), and have different levels of support
for
the various Query structures that Lucene can handle: SpanQuery,
FuzzyQuery,
PhraseQuery, etc.
We for example use an XML-based query parser. Why (you might well ask!),
well we had an already used and supported
All right let me put this.
http://192.168.1.78:8983/solr/collection1/select?q=inStock:falsefacet=truefacet.field=popularitywt=xmlindent=true
.
I just want to know what is this form. is it lucene query or this query
should go under query parser to get converted to lucene query.
Thanks,
Vivek
I would say *:* is a human-readable/writable query. as is
inStock:false. The former will be converted by the query parser into a
MatchAllDocsQuery which is what Lucene understands. The latter will be
converted (again by the query parser) into some query. Now this is where
*which* query parser
)/no_coord) +title:e/*. It seems like a bug within the query parser.
I also have validated the parsed filter query with the analysis
component. The result was */+title:te +title:t +title:e/*.
The behavior is equal on all special characters that split words into 2
parts.
I use the following
Apologies for the late response as this mail was lost somewhere in filters.
Issue was that CommonGramsQueryFilterFactory should be used for searching
and CommonGramsFilterFactory for indexing. We were using
CommonGramsFilterFactory for both due to which it was not dropping single
tokens for
this is a
red herring since I have totally removed Surround and the issue remains
there.
Below is the debug info when I give a simple phrase query having common
words with default Query Parser. What I don't understand is that why is it
including single tokens as well? I have also included the relevant
Query Parser. What I don't understand is that why is it
including single tokens as well? I have also included the relevant config
part below.
rawquerystring: Contents:\only be\,
querystring: Contents:\only be\,
parsedquery: MultiPhraseQuery(Contents:\(only only_be) be\),
parsedquery_toString
Hi Salman,
I am confused because with surround no analysis is applied at query time. I
suspect that surround query parser is not kicking in. You should see SrndQuery
or something like at parser query section.
On Monday, December 9, 2013 6:24 AM, Salman Akram
salman.ak
with surround no analysis is applied at query time.
I suspect that surround query parser is not kicking in. You should see
SrndQuery or something like at parser query section.
On Monday, December 9, 2013 6:24 AM, Salman Akram
salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net wrote:
All,
I posted this sub
But again, as Ahmet mentioned… it doesn't look like the surround query parser
is actually being used. The debug output also mentioned the query parser
used, but that part wasn't provided below. One thing to note here, the
surround query parser is not available in 1.4.1. It also looks like
common
words with default Query Parser. What I don't understand is that why is it
including single tokens as well? I have also included the relevant config
part below.
rawquerystring: Contents:\only be\,
querystring: Contents:\only be\,
parsedquery: MultiPhraseQuery(Contents:\(only only_be
part of SOLR. Any ways this is a
red herring since I have totally removed Surround and the issue remains
there.
Below is the debug info when I give a simple phrase query having common
words with default Query Parser. What I don't understand is that why is it
including single tokens as well? I have
All,
I posted this sub-issue with another issue few days back but maybe it was
not obvious so posting it on a separate thread.
We recently migrated to SOLR 4.6. We use Common Grams but queries with
words in the CG list have slowed down. On debugging we found that for CG
words the parser is
You are right that the XmlQueryParser isn't completely/yet implemented in
Solr. There is the JIRA mentioned above, which is still WIP, so you could
use that as a basis and extend it. If you aren't familiar with Solr and
Java, you might find that a struggle, in which case you might want to
Hi Daniel
Thanks for the heads up. I'll try to get the patch integrated.
Regards
Puneet
On 6 Dec 2013 16:39, Daniel Collins danwcoll...@gmail.com wrote:
You are right that the XmlQueryParser isn't completely/yet implemented in
Solr. There is the JIRA mentioned above, which is still WIP, so you
Hi,
I am testing using Solr 4.6 and would like to know if there is some
implementation like XmlQueryParser of Lucene in solr.
I need to be able to use SpanQueries. How would one go about implementing
this if it is not already implemented in solr.
TIA
Puneet
On 6 December 2013 11:35, Puneet Pawaia puneet.paw...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am testing using Solr 4.6 and would like to know if there is some
implementation like XmlQueryParser of Lucene in solr.
[...]
Please take a look at this JIRA issue:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-839
Hi Gora,
Had seen that before but took a look again. Since it is not yet resolved, I
assumed it is still a work in progress. Should I try an patch the current
4.6 code with the patches? How would you suggest I proceed? I am new to
Solr and Java and so do not have much experience with this.
-query-parser-in-Solr-instead-of-classic-tp4104584p4104895.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
I don't recall hearing any discussion of such a switch. In fact, Solr now
has its own copy of the classic Lucene query parser since Solr needed some
features that the Lucene guys did not find acceptable.
That said, if you have a proposal to dramatically upgrade the base Solr
query parser
P.S. I did only found one (unanswered) Thread and no Task about Solr and
flexible QP (Thread:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Using-the-contrib-flexible-query-parser-in-Solr-td819.html
)
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Using-the-flexible-query
Hi guys,
I was studying in deep the join feature, and I noticed that in Solr , the
join query parser is not working in scoring.
If you add the parameter scoreMode it is completely ignored...
Checking the source code it's possible to see that the join query is built
as follow :
public class
: Abeygunawardena, Niran
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 7:00 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Surround query parser not working?
Hi,
Thanks. I found out that my issue was the default field (df) was being
ignored and I had to specify the parameter by adding df=text in the URL
will be supported in the edismax query
parser itself as the surround query parser is not as good as the edismax
parser: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3101
Is there a way to AND the surround parser query with the edismax query so the
ordered proximity search can be run through
Yes, you should be able to used nested query parsers to mix the queries.
Solr 4.1(?) made it easier.
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message-
From: Abeygunawardena, Niran
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 7:00 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Surround query parser not working
Hi,
I have tried to get the surround query parser working against SOLR 4.3.0 and
SOLR 4.0.0 but it does not seem to return any documents for me. I need this
parser to make ordered proximity searches with the operator W. I have tried
the parser with normal boolean operators like OR and it still
Niran -
Looks like you're being bitten by a known feature* of the surround query
parser. It does not analyze the text, as some of the other more commonly used
query parsers does. The dismax, edismax, and lucene query parsers all
leverage field analysis on the query terms or phrases
/SurroundQueryParser
Ahmet
From: Abeygunawardena, Niran niran.abeygunaward...@proquest.co.uk
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2013 2:42 PM
Subject: Surround query parser not working?
Hi,
I have tried to get the surround
Hi Niran, all,
Please look at JIRA LUCENE-5014. There you will find a Lucene parser that
does both analysis and span queries, equivalent to combination of
lucene+surround, and much more The ticket needs your review.
Roman
Indeed, Roman. Thanks for mentioning that. I just took a quick look at that
issue and will look at it even deeper as time permits.
Erik
On Jul 3, 2013, at 09:43 , Roman Chyla wrote:
Hi Niran, all,
Please look at JIRA LUCENE-5014. There you will find a Lucene parser that
does both
Hello list followers,
I need to write a custom Solr query parser and a search component. The
requirements for the component are that the raw query that may need to be split
into separate Solr queries is in a proprietary format encoded in JSON, and the
output is also going to be in a similar
layer that is completely under your own control.
Those disclaimers out of the way...
Start by studying any of the existing query parser plugins - AND its unit
tests.
Ditto with search components.
Keep studying until you have specific questions.
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message
? I would imagine that'd
be a lot simpler than subclassing Solr classes.
Swati
-Original Message-
From: Juha Haaga [mailto:juha.ha...@codenomicon.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 9:33 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Steps for creating a custom query parser and search
Hello Sascha,
I propose to call raw parser from standard one by nested query syntax
http://searchhub.org/2009/03/31/nested-queries-in-solr/
Regards.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Sascha Szott sz...@zib.de wrote:
Hi folks,
is it possible to use the raw query parser with a disjunctive
Hi folks,
is it possible to use the raw query parser with a disjunctive filter
query? Say, I have a field 'foo' and two values 'v1' and 'v2' (the field
values are free text and can contain any character). What I want is to
retrieve all documents satisying fq=foo:(v1 OR v2). In case only one
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there some profound reason why the defType is not passed onto the filter
query?
defType is a convenience so that the main query parameter q can
directly be the user query (without specifying it's type like
edismax).
Makes sense, thanks. One more question. Shouldn't there be a mechanism to
define a default query parser?
something like (inside QParserPlugin):
public static String DEFAULT_QTYPE = default; // now it
is LuceneQParserPlugin.NAME;
public static final Object[] standardPlugins = {
DEFAULT_QTYPE
. Shouldn't there be a mechanism to
define a default query parser?
something like (inside QParserPlugin):
public static String DEFAULT_QTYPE = default; // now it
is LuceneQParserPlugin.NAME;
public static final Object[] standardPlugins = {
DEFAULT_QTYPE, LuceneQParserPlugin.class
True, you cannot currently specify a default (other than the trick Roman showed
earlier) query parser for fq parameters. I think of the bulk of my fq's in the
form of fq={!term f=facet_field}value so setting a default term query parser
for fq's wouldn't really help me exactly, as it needs an f
The query language is NOT pure boolean. Hoss wrote this up:
http://searchhub.org/2011/12/28/why-not-and-or-and-not/
Best
Erick
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, sorry, I have assumed lucene query parser. I think SOLR qp must be
different
);
So the filter query parser will default to 'lucene' and besides local
params such as '{!regex}' the only way to force solr to use a different
parser is to override the lucene query parser in the solrconfig.xml
queryParser name=lucene class=solr.SomeOtherQParserPlugin /
That doesn't seem right
Hallo,
I do not really understand the query language of the SOLR-Queryparser.
I use SOLR 4.2 und I have nearly 20 sample address records in the
SOLR-Database.
I only use the q field in the SOLR Admin Web GUI and every other
controls on this website is on default.
First category:
should be: -city:H* OR zip:30*
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Peter Schütt newsgro...@pstt.de wrote:
Hallo,
I do not really understand the query language of the SOLR-Queryparser.
I use SOLR 4.2 und I have nearly 20 sample address records in the
SOLR-Database.
I only use the q
Hallo,
Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com wrote in
news:caen8dywjrl+e3b0hpc9ntlmjtrkasrqlvkzhkqxopmlhhfn...@mail.gmail.com:
should be: -city:H* OR zip:30*
-city:H* OR zip:30* numFound:2520
gives the same wrong result.
Another Idea?
Ciao
Peter Schütt
: Hallo,
: I do not really understand the query language of the SOLR-Queryparser.
http://www.lucidimagination.com/blog/2011/12/28/why-not-and-or-and-not/
The one comment i would add regarding your specific examples...
: (!city:H*) OR zip:30*numFound: 2896
...you can't have a boolean
What if you try
city:(*:* -H*) OR zip:30*
Sometimes Solr requires a list of documents to subtract from (think of *:*
-someQuery converts to all documents without someQuery).
You can also try looking at your query with debugQuery = true.
-Luis
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Peter Schütt
Oh, sorry, I have assumed lucene query parser. I think SOLR qp must be
different then, because for me it works as expected (our qp parser is
identical with lucene in the way it treats modifiers +/- and operators
AND/OR/NOT -- NOT must be joining two clauses: a NOT b, the first cannot be
negative
The problem was connected with filter order. WordDelimiterFilter should be
put before others. Thanks for your help.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Query-parser-cuts-last-letter-from-search-term-tp4053432p4053736.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list
: characters.txt
§ = ALPHA
$ = ALPHA
% = ALPHA
= ALPHA
/ = ALPHA
( = ALPHA
) = ALPHA
= = ALPHA
? = ALPHA
+ = ALPHA
* = ALPHA
# = ALPHA
' = ALPHA
- = ALPHA
= ALPHA
= ALPHA
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Query-parser-cuts-last-letter-from-search-term
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Query-parser-cuts-last-letter-from-search-term-tp4053432.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
So why Solr does not return proper document?
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Query-parser-cuts-last-letter-from-search-term-tp4053432p4053435.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Query parser cuts last letter from search term.
Hi,
I have strange problem with Solr query. I added to my Solr Index new
document with behave! word inside content. While I was trying to search
this document using behave search term it was impossible. Only behave
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013, at 11:36 AM, vsl wrote:
So why Solr does not return proper document?
You're gonna have to give us a bit more than that.
What is wrong with the documents it is returning?
Upayavira
Hi,
Thanks, that seems to be the quickest way. But I did not get the part with
building a DisjunctionMaxQuery from the clauses. I would need to keep it as a
BooleanQuery, wouldn't I, and compare the weights from each clause and nullify
all but the max weight clause?
--
Jan Høydahl, search
- From: Jan Høydahl
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 6:32 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Max Score Query parser?
Hi,
A customer sends large, deeply nested boolean queries to Solr using the
default (lucene) parser.
The default scoring is summing up all the scores. For parts
Jan,
No, you wouldn't. Let's say that a BooleanQuery with SHOULD clauses is
equal to a DisjunctionMaxQuery with the same clauses up to scores i.e. you
can assert that they returns absolutely same documents, but with the
different scores (max vs sum).
Idea about dropping clauses' weights reminds
Hi,
A customer sends large, deeply nested boolean queries to Solr using the default
(lucene) parser.
The default scoring is summing up all the scores. For parts of this query they
would like
to use the Max score instead of the sum, e.g. for q=+A +B +(C D E) we want the
max
of C,D,E. I was
Jan,
I think it's worth to start from extending LuceneQParser. Then after
parent's parse() returns a query instance. It can be cast to BooleanQuery,
after that it's possible to check that all clauses have SHOULD occur, and
to create an instance of DisjunctionMaxQuery() from the given clauses.
Am
Bite the bullet and use a function query for the boost:
bf=max(query({!v='field:C'}),query({!v='field:D'}),query({!v='field:E'}))
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message-
From: Jan Høydahl
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 6:32 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Max Score Query
Thanks very much, it worked perfectly !!
Best regards, Lisheng
-Original Message-
From: Jack Krupansky [mailto:j...@basetechnology.com]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 1:04 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Solr query parser, needs to call
setAutoGeneratePhraseQueries(true
/luceneMatchVersion
in solrconfig.xml (if I read souce code correctly), but I donot want to
do so because this will change the whole behavior of lucene, and I only
want to change this query parser behavior, not other lucene features?
Please guide me if there is a better way other than to change
query parser, needs to call setAutoGeneratePhraseQueries(true)
Hi,
In our application we need to call method
setAutoGeneratePhraseQueries(true)
on lucene QueryParser, this is the way used to work in earlier versions
and it seems to me that is the much natural way?
But in current solr 3.6.1
...
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message-
From: Jack Krupansky
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 3:51 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Solr query parser, needs to call
setAutoGeneratePhraseQueries(true)
Simply add the autoGeneratePhraseQueries attribute with a value of true
Thanks very much for your valuable help, it worked perfectly !!!
Lisheng
-Original Message-
From: Jack Krupansky [mailto:j...@basetechnology.com]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 12:54 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Solr query parser, needs to call
, 2013 3:20 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Solr query parser, needs to call setAutoGeneratePhraseQueries(true)
Hi,
In our application we need to call method
setAutoGeneratePhraseQueries(true)
on lucene QueryParser, this is the way used to work in earlier versions
and it seems to me
-Wednesday/L1R-Lucene/aceu-2012-compound-terms-query-parser-for-great-shopping-experience.pdf
We are doing movie search but the situation is very similar to the one you
were talking about.
People can search for movies by title, summary, actors, director etc in
ine single search field
:
Good morning Mikhail.
I hope you had a nice Christmas.
I came across your excellent presentation at:
http://archive.apachecon.com/eu2012/presentations/07-Wednesday/L1R-Lucene/aceu-2012-compound-terms-query-parser-for-great-shopping-experience.pdf
We are doing movie search
and
entering a a search like this (text:foobar) causes the query parser to
mangle the query as shown by the results below. Adding a space after the
first paren solves this. I checked 3.6.1 and get the same issue. I recall an
issue like this in 3.6.0 but thought it was quashed in 3.6.1?
response
:04
An: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Edismax query parser and phrase queries
I don’t have a simple answer for your stated issue, but maybe part of that is
because I’m not so sure what the exact problem/goal is. I mean, what’s so
special about phrase queries for your app than they need
Okay, so the bottom line here is that you wish to change the semantics of
quoted phrases. Fine, that's your prerogative, but a change in semantics
would require a change to the query parser, or as you originally indicated,
a pre-processor. It does sound as if a pre-processor is the way to go
the semantics of
quoted phrases. Fine, that's your prerogative, but a change in semantics
would require a change to the query parser, or as you originally indicated,
a pre-processor. It does sound as if a pre-processor is the way to go here.
You still have a choice: An application-level
Hi,
we are using the edismax query parser and execute queries on specific fields by
using the qf option. Like others, we are facing the problem we do not want
explicit phrase queries to be performed on some of the qf fields and also
require additional search fields for those kind of queries.
We
to achieve? Such as, how will the
outcome of the query affect what users see and do.
-- Jack Krupansky
From: Tantius, Richard
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 8:44 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Edismax query parser and phrase queries
Hi,
we are using the edismax query parser
confirmed this by looking up the index in luke. I can see that the
words haven't been tokenized.
I use a search handler which uses edismax query parser for searching.
According to the wiki also
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/ExtendedDisMax#Query_Structure Extended DisMax
breaks up the query string
Hi all,
I'm having a problem using the Solr ExtendedDisMax Query Parser with query that
contains fielded searches inside not-plain queries.
The case is the following.
If I send to SOLR an edismax request (defType=edismax) with parameters
1. qf=field1^10
2. q=field2:ciao
3. debugQuery
: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 8:35 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Fielded searches with Solr ExtendedDisMax Query Parser
Hi all,
I'm having a problem using the Solr ExtendedDisMax Query Parser with query
that contains fielded searches inside not-plain queries.
The case is the following.
If I
/SOLR-3377
So,
q=(field2:ciao)
becomes:
q=( field2:ciao)
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message- From: Nicolò Martini
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 8:35 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Fielded searches with Solr ExtendedDisMax Query Parser
Hi all,
I'm having
in the default section of dismax handler
definition, but still Im not getting the required results. In Our scenario,
We would like to use Dismax request handler along with Dismax Query Parser.
Can you tell me how this can be done?
Regards,
Sivaganesh
sivasrm...@gmail.com
--
View this message
the required results. In Our scenario,
We would like to use Dismax request handler along with Dismax Query Parser.
Can you tell me how this can be done?
Regards,
Sivaganesh
sivasrm...@gmail.com
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Dismax-request-handler-and-Dismax-query
I got this working the way you
describe it (in the getHighlightQuery()
method). The span queries were tripping it up, so I
extracted the query
terms and created a DisMax query from them. There'll be
a
loss of accuracy
in the highlighting, but in my case that's better than
no
I just go ahead and submit a patch to SOLR-2703?
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Ahmet Arslan iori...@yahoo.com wrote:
I am not able to do highlighting with surround query parser
on the returned
results.
I have tried the highlighting component but it does not
return highlighted
I got this working the way you
describe it (in the getHighlightQuery()
method). The span queries were tripping it up, so I
extracted the query
terms and created a DisMax query from them. There'll be a
loss of accuracy
in the highlighting, but in my case that's better than no
highlighting.
Hi, I've been wondering why some of my queries did not return the
results I expected. A debugQuery resulted in the following:
str name=querystring
java^0.0 OR haskell^0.0 OR python^0.0 OR (ruby^0.0) AND
((programming^0.0)) OR programming language^0.0 OR code
coding^0.0 OR -mobile^0.0 OR
Count your parentheses (anyone here speak Lisp?) I think that +
is outside the entire clause, meaning it's saying that there is
a single mandatory clause, and it's the whole thing
But boosting by 0.0 is probably a really bad thing. This may be
dropping all the scores to 0, which means no
Hi!
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 18:42, Erick Erickson erickerick...@gmail.com wrote:
Count your parentheses (anyone here speak Lisp?) I think that +
is outside the entire clause, meaning it's saying that there is
a single mandatory clause, and it's the whole thing
You're right in that case
Right. Essentially, the precedence is given to AND, so this is parsed
as though it were python OR (ruby AND programming) OR programming language
Best
Erick
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Michael Jakl jakl.mich...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 18:42, Erick Erickson
and python occur in my index), I won't get any
articles because awordthatdoesnotexistinmyindex isn't to be found
anywhere.
The query parser outputs:
+(+DisjunctionMaxQuery((stemmedText:awordthatdoesnotexistinmyindex))
+DisjunctionMaxQuery((stemmedText:java))
DisjunctionMaxQuery((stemmedText:python
Well, at root the Lucene query parser makes no claim of
enforcing boolean logic. Think in terms of MUST, SHOULD
and NOT instead.
Here's a good writeup...
http://www.lucidimagination.com/blog/2011/12/28/why-not-and-or-and-not/
Best
Erick
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Michael Jakl jakl.mich
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 06:27, Erick Erickson erickerick...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, at root the Lucene query parser makes no claim of
enforcing boolean logic. Think in terms of MUST, SHOULD
and NOT instead.
Here's a good writeup...
http://www.lucidimagination.com/blog/2011/12/28/why
i am using surround parser to perform span queries and getting the required
result ,but i want to highlight the term in result set and highlighter i
guess does not support surround query parser . Are their any plugin or
patches available to do the same .
i guess highlighting should use surround
Hi,
when I request a query to solr with
/solr/select?q=querydebugQuery=trueqf=title
I get no result.
The debug information tells me this.
str name=querystringquery/str
str name=parsedquerytext:query/str
When I request a query to solr with /solr/select?q=title:querydebugQuery=true
I get the
Because you're using the lucene query parser which doesn't use qf. Add
defType=dismax to get the effect you want.
Erik
On Jan 11, 2012, at 12:22, Matthias Müller mm4...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi,
when I request a query to solr with
/solr/select?q=querydebugQuery=trueqf=title
I get
201 - 300 of 449 matches
Mail list logo
