:32 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Weird issue with q.op=AND
Hi,
I'm facing a weird problem while using q.op=AND condition. Looks like it
gets into some conflict if I use multiple "appends" condition in
conjunction. It works as long as I've one filtering condition in
Thanks, I'll take a look at the debug data.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Weird-issue-with-q-op-AND-tp4117013p4117047.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 2/12/2014 4:58 PM, shamik wrote:
Thanks a lot Shawn. Changing the appends filtering based on your suggestion
worked. The part which confused me bigtime is the syntax I've been using so
far without an issue (barring the q.op part).
Source:"TestHelp" | Source:"downloads" |
-AccessMode:"
Thanks a lot Shawn. Changing the appends filtering based on your suggestion
worked. The part which confused me bigtime is the syntax I've been using so
far without an issue (barring the q.op part).
Source:"TestHelp" | Source:"downloads" |
-AccessMode:"internal" | -workflowparentid:[* TO *]
On 2/12/2014 3:32 PM, Shamik Bandopadhyay wrote:
Hi,
I'm facing a weird problem while using q.op=AND condition. Looks like it
gets into some conflict if I use multiple "appends" condition in
conjunction. It works as long as I've one filtering condition in appends.
Source:"TestHelp"
Hi,
I'm facing a weird problem while using q.op=AND condition. Looks like it
gets into some conflict if I use multiple "appends" condition in
conjunction. It works as long as I've one filtering condition in appends.
Source:"TestHelp"
Now, the moment I add an additional parameter, sear