Hi,
I have use cases of features which require a query function and some more
math on top of the result of the query function
Eg of a feature : no of extra terms in the document from input text
I am trying various ways of representing this feature but always getting an
exception
ot; multiValued="false" required="false" docValues="true"
> > />
> >
> > ---
> > Yes it is just for functions, sorting, and boosting
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 4:51 PM Erick Erickson
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Ha
t; docValues="true"
> />
>
> ---
> Yes it is just for functions, sorting, and boosting
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 4:51 PM Erick Erickson
> wrote:
>>
>> Have you seen “In-place updates”?
>>
>> See:
>> https://lucene.apache.org/s
Hi,
I'm trying to use Solr query function as a boost for term matches in the
title field. Here's my boost function
bf=if(exists(query({!v='title:Import data'})),10,0)
This throws the following error --> can not use FieldCache on multivalued
field: data
The function seems to be only work
ke:
---
Yes it is just for functions, sorting, and boosting
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 4:51 PM Erick Erickson wrote:
>
> Have you seen “In-place updates”?
>
> See:
> https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/8_1/updating-parts-of-documents.html
>
> Then use the field as part of a func
Have you seen “In-place updates”?
See:
https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/8_1/updating-parts-of-documents.html
Then use the field as part of a function query. Since it’s non-indexed, you
won’t be searching on it. That said, you can do a lot with function queries
to satisfy use-cases.
Best
I have hit a bit of a cross-road with our usage of solr where I want
to include some slightly dynamic data.
I want to ask solr to find things like "text query" but only if they
meet some specific criteria. When I have all of those criteria
indexed, everything works great. (text contai
14, 2020, at 5:13 AM, Iana Bondarska wrote:
>
> Hi Erick,
> thanks for the response!
> I've checked parsed queries in debug mode and there is following
> difference:
>
> original query(this is value of the q parameter in the query)
> : (some_field:"hourly&
Hi Erick,
thanks for the response!
I've checked parsed queries in debug mode and there is following
difference:
original query(this is value of the q parameter in the query)
: (some_field:"hourly") AND (*:* AND -field_to_exclude:*)
for edismax defType:
(+(+(+some_fi
First, Solr does _not_ implement boolean logic. It can look like it, but that’s
sugar.
See: https://lucidworks.com/post/why-not-and-or-and-not/
As for (1), I haven’t a clue. If you’d provided the results of
adding =query to the query, the parsed version
would have given us some pointers.
(2
Hi everyone,
I'm checking Solr query that contains condition "Exclude all documents that
contain ceratin field".
Currently, it looks like this:
*(*:* AND -field_to_exclude:*)*
Full query is:
*((some_other_field:"value") AND ((*:* AND -field_to_exclude:*)))*
If I use defT
People usually want to do some analysis during index time. This analysis
should be considered 'expensive', compared to any single query run. You
can think of it as indexing every day, over a 86400 second day, vs a 200 ms
query time.
Normally, you want to index as honestly as possible
edge ngrams, for example for
“french” add “f”, “fr” “fre”, “fren”, and “frenc”.
* shingles: Make pairs, so the query “babysitter” can match “baby sitter”.
* split on delimiters: break up compounds, so “baby sitter” can match
“baby-sitter”. Do this before shingles and you get matches for “babysitter
When you want to do something different and index and query time. There, an
answer that’s almost, but not quite, completely useless while being accurate ;)
A concrete example is synonyms as have been mentioned. Say you have an
index-time synonym definition of
A,B,C
These three tokens
I gave an example of why you might want to analyze the corpus differently
from the query just yesterday -- see
https://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Lowercase-ing-everything-but-acronyms-td4462899.html
-s
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 11:19 AM Steven White wrote:
> Hi every
There are a lot of different use cases and the separate analyzers for
indexing and query is part of the Solr power. For example, you could
apply ngram during indexing time to generate multiple substrings. But
you don't want to do that during the query, because otherwise you are
matching on 'shared
Hi Steve
I have a real-world use case. We don't apply a synonym filter at index
time, but we do apply a managed synonym filter at query time. This allows
content managers to add new synonyms (or remove existing ones) "on the fly"
without having to reindex any documents.
Thomas
Op
;solr synonyms index vs
query"
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Steven White
Sent: September 10, 2020 8:19 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Why use a different analyzer for "index" and "query"?
[EXTERNAL] This email came from an external source. Only open
Hi everyone,
In Solr's schema, I have come across field types that use a different logic
for "index" than for "query". To be clear, I"m talking about this block:
Why would one want to not use the same logi
Hi Solr Team,
I am trying to retrieve the Parent Document by using the Block Join Parent
Query Parser (q={!parent which=allParents}someChildren), but the filter
condition i gave is having the same field in both the parent and the child
document, So the Parser is throwing the Error : "
r
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 10:57 AM Mark Robinson
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > I had come across a mail (Oct, 2019 one) which suggested the best way is
> to
> > handle it before it reaches Solr. I was curious whether:-
&g
l (Oct, 2019 one) which suggested the best way is to
> handle it before it reaches Solr. I was curious whether:-
> 1. Jetty query filter can be used (came across something like
> that,, need to check)
> 2. Any new features in Solr itself (like in a request handler...or
> s
a MatchNoDocsQuery
(added =query to something similar) so it finds no documents. And no
NPE even with a sharded collection.
What probably happened after you split the shard was that the sub-requests were
being sent slightly differently than the input. When a collection has more than
one
shard
Yes, we are sure that this is not typo.
Actually we did more experiments and found that
1) https://hostname:8983/solr/my_collection/select?ids=169455599|1
2) https://hostname:8983/solr/my_collection/select?q=id:169455599|1
3) https://hostname:8983/solr/my_collection/get?ids=169455599|1
1)
Hi Tyrone,
We use an external load balancer across the nodes.
If you use the java client you can query the zookeepers
https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/7_1/solrcloud-query-routing-and-read-tolerance.html
SolrCloud Query Routing And Read Tolerance | Apache Solr Reference Guide
7.1<ht
http://localhost:8983/solr/files/select?q=*%3A*
Is there a way to query solr cloud collections though the Zoo Keeper or
common host:port
So that if node 1 or node 2 goes down.
The Solr query will still work, so I don't have to change the Solr
host:port in the query if one solr node goes down
ving some trouble with multi shards.
>
> The initial number of shards in the collection was one(and 3 replica), and
> we have recently split a shard into 4 shards(and 3 replica for each shard)
> by using API call :
> /admin/collections?action=SPLITSHARD=name=shardID
>
>
And now this query,
"https://hostname:8983/solr/my_collection/select?ids=169455599|1" , is
returning NPE, which was working before multi shards.
Could you please give any advice on why select query on multiple IDs doesn't
work after shart splitting?
null:java.lang.NullPointe
We have the following setup , solr 7.7.2 with 1 TLOG Leader & 1 TLOG
replica with a single shard. We have about 34.5 million documents with an
approximate index size of 600GB. I have noticed a degraded query
performance whenever the replica is trying to (guessing here) sync or
perform ac
?
A concrete example of a filter on parent document: enum_attr_2021:2738
(integer field)
Stepping through query parsing
«{!child of=docType:object}enum_attr_2021:2730» is parsed to
«ToChildBlockJoinQuery (+(-enum_attr_2021:[2738 TO 2738]))»
«-{!child of=docType:object}enum_attr_2021:2730
Hi,
I had come across a mail (Oct, 2019 one) which suggested the best way is to
handle it before it reaches Solr. I was curious whether:-
1. Jetty query filter can be used (came across something like
that,, need to check)
2. Any new features in Solr itself (like in a request handler
ow terms are removed or
> transformed by each filter of the analysis chain for a field or a
> fieldtype.
>
> Regards
>
> Dominique
>
>
> Le lun. 24 août 2020 à 12:01, Jayadevan Maymala
> a écrit :
>
> > Hi all,
> > I am learning the basics of Solr
order to see how terms are removed or
transformed by each filter of the analysis chain for a field or a fieldtype.
Regards
Dominique
Le lun. 24 août 2020 à 12:01, Jayadevan Maymala
a écrit :
> Hi all,
> I am learning the basics of Solr querying and am not able to figure out
> s
Hi all,
I am learning the basics of Solr querying and am not able to figure out
something. The first query which searches for 'apac' fetches no documents.
The second one which searches for 'apach' , i.e. add h - one more
character, fetches a document.
curl -X GET "
http://localhost:8983
synonyms through Solr filters,
> rather we parse the user's query in our own application and add synonyms
> there, before it gets to Solr.
>
> Some additional info: we have sow=true (to be compatible with Solr 6), and
> autogeneratePhraseQueries=true. In our A/B testing, we did
Thanks Michael, I took a look, but we don't have any pf or pf1,2,3 phrase
params set at all. Also, we don't add synonyms through Solr filters,
rather we parse the user's query in our own application and add synonyms
there, before it gets to Solr.
Some additional info: we have sow=true
all
> those features turned on.
>
> We've narrowed the largest overall latencies to queries which contain many
> terms OR'd together (essentially synonyms we add to the query ourselves);
> there may be as many as 0-38 or more quoted phrases OR'd together.
> Latencies increase the more
the average Solr 6 latencies with all
those features turned on.
We've narrowed the largest overall latencies to queries which contain many
terms OR'd together (essentially synonyms we add to the query ourselves);
there may be as many as 0-38 or more quoted phrases OR'd together.
Latencies increase
Ed:
Right, doing this in a custom query parser on the Solr end that subclasses
edismax
is probably the way to go or similar.
Especially because String->parsed query->String, even without any changes in
the parsing is _not_ guaranteed to give you the same string back. I’m not clear
on w
Hi Markus,
Many thanks, I see what you are saying. My question was:
Question: is it possible to get a Lucene Query representation of the
client's query, which we can then navigate and manipulate -- before we then
send the String representation of this Query to Solr for evaluation?
... and from
Hello Edward,
You asked for the 'Lucene Query representation of the client's query' which is
already inside Solr and needs no forwarding to anything. Just return in parse()
and you are good to go.
The Query object contains the analyzed form of your query string.
ExtendedDismax has some
Hi Markus,
That's really great info. Thank you.
Supposing we've now modified the Query object, do you know how we would get
the corresponding query String, which we could then forward to our
Solrcloud via SolrClient?
(Or should we be using this extended ExtendedDisMaxQParser class server
side
Jason,
Not yet.This issue was on the back burner for a few daysHowever we
still need to figure out what could be a potential solution to it.
The setup is basic one - with one node / no shards or replicas
2 cores
When I run the query adding debug=timing to raw query parameters it just
hangs
Hello Edward,
Yes you can by extending ExtendedDismaxQParser [1] and override its parse()
method. You get the main Query object through super.parse().
If you need even more fine grained control on how Query objects are created you
can extend ExtendedSolrQueryParser's [2] (inner class
Hi all,
Thanks for all your help recently. We're now using the edismax query parser
and are happy with its behaviour. We have another question which maybe
someone can help with.
We have one use case where we optimise our query before sending it to Solr,
and we do this by manipulating
Hey Abhijit,
The information you provided isn't really enough for anyone else on
the mailing list to debug the problem. If you'd like help, please
provide some more information.
Good places to start would be: what is the query, what does Solr tell
you when you add a "debug=timing"
: On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 11:53 AM Jörn Franke wrote:
:
: > Dear all,
: >
: > I have the following issues. I have a Solrj Client 8.6 (but it happens
: > also in previous versions), where I execute, for example, the following
: > query:
: > Jörn
: >
: > If I look into So
> I have the following issues. I have a Solrj Client 8.6 (but it happens
> > also in previous versions), where I execute, for example, the following
> > query:
> > Jörn
> >
> > If I look into Solr Admin UI it finds all the right results.
> >
> > If
e a Solrj Client 8.6 (but it happens
> also in previous versions), where I execute, for example, the following
> query:
> Jörn
>
> If I look into Solr Admin UI it finds all the right results.
>
> If I use Solrj client then it does not find anything.
> Further, investigating in
Dear all,
I have the following issues. I have a Solrj Client 8.6 (but it happens also
in previous versions), where I execute, for example, the following query:
Jörn
If I look into Solr Admin UI it finds all the right results.
If I use Solrj client then it does not find anything.
Further
Hello,
I am seeing a performance issue in querying in one of the SOLR servers -
instance version 5.4.1.
Total number of documents indexed are 20K plus.
Data returned for this particular query is just as less as 22 documents
however it takes almost 2 minutes to get the results back
In high throughput situations that can be a problem. The entire
packet has to be assembled and transmitted over the network. This
can cause grief in many situations.
Not to mention that for “regular” queries, say using the /select or /query
handlers and assuming you’re getting
one or more stored
"Oh, and returning 100K docs is an anti-pattern, if you really need that
many docs consider cursorMark and/or Streaming."
er, i routinely ask for 2+ million records into a single file based on a
query. I mean not into a web application or anything, its meant to be
processed afte
r@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: solr query returns items with spaces removed
>
> The “def” function goes after the _indexed_ value, so that’s what you’re
> getting back. Try just specifying “fl=INSTRUCTIONS”, and if the value is
> stored that should return the original fiel
, July 29, 2020 12:49 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: solr query returns items with spaces removed
The “def” function goes after the _indexed_ value, so that’s what you’re
getting back. Try just specifying “fl=INSTRUCTIONS”, and if the value is stored
that should return
The “def” function goes after the _indexed_ value, so that’s what you’re
getting back. Try just specifying “fl=INSTRUCTIONS”, and if the value is stored
that should return the original field value before any analysis is done.
Why are you using the def function? If the field is absent from the
d special characters removed. I thought the field Type filters
would impact the index and the query lookup but not the data.
What's even weirder is that other fields that also use this field type (like
transaction reference number) do not show the same behavior.
For example a transaction_reference
> On Jul 22, 2020, at 08:52, raj.yadav wrote:
>
> Erik Hatcher-4 wrote
>> Wouldn’t a “string” field be as good, if not better, for this use case?
>
> What is the rationale behind this type change to 'string'. How will it speed
> up search/filtering? Will it not increase the index size.
pints
1> take up less space (IIRC)
2> are better for range queries.
Best,
Erick
> On Jul 22, 2020, at 8:49 AM, raj.yadav wrote:
>
> Erik Hatcher-4 wrote
>> Wouldn’t a “string” field be as good, if not better, for this use case?
>
> What is the rationale behind this type change to 'string'.
Erik Hatcher-4 wrote
> Wouldn’t a “string” field be as good, if not better, for this use case?
What is the rationale behind this type change to 'string'. How will it speed
up search/filtering? Will it not increase the index size. Since in general
string type takes more space storage then int (not
Erick Erickson wrote
> Also, the default pint type is not as efficient for single-value searches
> like this, the trie fields are better. Trie support will be kept until
> there’s a good alternative for the single-value lookup with pint.
>
> So for what you’re doing, I’d change to TrieInt,
se, index=true.
> If you have neither docValues=true nor index=true, the query won’t work at
> all. You’ll have to adequately size your hardware if index size is a concern.
>
> Best,
> Erick
>
>> On Jul 22, 2020, at 7:18 AM, Raj Yadav wrote:
>>
>> Below is t
-value lookup with pint.
So for what you’re doing, I’d change to TrieInt, docValues=false, index=true.
If you have neither docValues=true nor index=true, the query won’t work at all.
You’ll have to adequately size your hardware if index size is a concern.
Best,
Erick
> On Jul 22, 2020, a
Below is the sample document
*{"filedA": 1,"filedB": "","filedC": "Sher","filedD":
I would want to know about this too
—
Mauro Asprea
E-Mail: mauroasp...@gmail.com
Mobile: +34 654 297 582
> El 14 jul 2020, a las 18:33, André Widhani escribió:
>
> Hi,
>
> Does anybody know if work is in progress to make Lucene's concurrent query
> execution accessible
Hi,
Does anybody know if work is in progress to make Lucene's concurrent query
execution accessible through Solr? I am talking about this:
http://blog.mikemccandless.com/2019/10/concurrent-query-execution-in-apache.html
I find this compelling in particular since the changes in LUCENE-7976 /
Solr
We're switching to using composite routing in our solr cloud collection,
and of course that changes the document id. If I'm setting the document id
myself, what is the performance difference between q=id:123!4567 and
q=*:*=some_field:4567?
Example:
Pre-indexed document:
- field1: 4567
-
. "to expand the methods for mailing cancellation"
And another document with the text:
2. "to expand methods for mailing cancellation"
The user query is (without quotes): q=expand the methods for mailing
cancellation
I don't want to bring all the documents with condition q.op=OR, i
Hi,
I want to search Solr for server names in a set of Microsoft Word documents,
PDF, and image files like jpg,gif.
Server names are given by the regular expression(regex)
INFP[a-zA-z0-9]{3,9}
TRKP[a-zA-z0-9]{3,9}
PLCP[a-zA-z0-9]{3,9}
SQRP[a-zA-z0-9]{3,9}
Problem
===
I want to get the
Hi Swetha,
Given URL is encoded. So, you can decode it before analyzing. Plus
character is used for whitespaces when you encode a URL and minus sign
represents a negative query in Solr.
Kind Regards,
Furkan KAMACI
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 9:16 PM swetha vemula
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I ha
Hi,
I have an URL and I want to break this down and run it in the admin console
but I am not what is ++ and - represents in the query.
select?q=(StartPublish%3a%5b*+TO+-12-31T23%3a59%3a59.999Z%5d++-Content%3a(Birthdays%5c%2fAnniversaries))++-FriendlyUrl%3a(*%2farchive%2f*))++((Title_NGram
t; can
> be added back in and tweaked later, or just left out.
>
> Second, you don’t need any query syntax to search for two words. This
> query
> should work fine:
>
> books bags
>
> wunder
> Walter Underwood
> wun...@wunderwood.org
> http://observer.wunderwood.o
Dear Community,
I am currently working on a Solr Custom Plugin, which - for a group query -
adds both total matches and number of groups to the response and also keeps the
response format as if it is not a group query. One additional requirement is
that numFound should contain the number
First, remove the “mm” parameter from the request handler definition. That can
be added back in and tweaked later, or just left out.
Second, you don’t need any query syntax to search for two words. This query
should work fine:
books bags
wunder
Walter Underwood
wun...@wunderwood.org
http
ra wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I have a scenario with following entry in the request handler(handler1) of
> solrconfig.xml.(defType=edismax is used)
> description category "qf">title^4 demand^0.3
> 2-1 4-30%
>
> When I searched 'bags' as a search string, solr returned 15000 r
Hi,
I have a scenario with following entry in the request handler(handler1) of
solrconfig.xml.(defType=edismax is used)
description category title^4 demand^0.3
2-1 4-30%
When I searched 'bags' as a search string, solr returned 15000 results.
Query Used :
http://localhost:8984/solr/core_name
Thank you Walter, I'll look into “mm” (minimum match) parameter.
Best Regards,
Vadim Permakoff
-Original Message-
From: Walter Underwood
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 2:31 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Query in quotes cannot find results
This is exactly why the “mm
"to expand the methods for mailing cancellation"
> And another document with the text:
> 2. "to expand methods for mailing cancellation"
>
> The user query is (without quotes): q=expand the methods for mailing
> cancellation
> I don't want to bring all the doc
Best Regards,
Vadim Permakoff
-Original Message-
From: Walter Underwood
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 12:50 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Query in quotes cannot find results
Removing stopwords is a dumb requirement. “Doctor, it hurts when I shove
hedgehogs up my ars
. "to expand the methods for mailing cancellation"
And another document with the text:
2. "to expand methods for mailing cancellation"
The user query is (without quotes): q=expand the methods for mailing
cancellation
I don't want to bring all the documents with condition q.op=O
y thoughts?
>
> Best Regards,
> Vadim Permakoff
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Erick Erickson
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 10:19 PM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Query in quotes cannot find results
>
> Looks like you’re removing stopwor
> path, but the exact match result still cannot be found! This is weird.
> Any thoughts?
>
> Best Regards,
> Vadim Permakoff
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Erick Erickson
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 10:19 PM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Su
-
From: Erick Erickson
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 10:19 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Query in quotes cannot find results
Looks like you’re removing stopwords. Stopwords cause issues like this with the
positions being off.
It’s becoming more and more common to _NOT_ remove
gt; Many thanks for the response, I checked the field and it is correct. Let's
> call it _text_ to make it easier.
> I believe the parsing is also correct, please see below:
> - Query without quotes (works):
>"querystring":"expand the methods",
>"parse
Hi Shawn,
Many thanks for the response, I checked the field and it is correct. Let's call
it _text_ to make it easier.
I believe the parsing is also correct, please see below:
- Query without quotes (works):
"querystring":"expand the methods",
"parsedquery":
On 6/29/2020 3:34 PM, Permakoff, Vadim wrote:
The basic query q=expand the methods <<< finds the document,
the query (in quotes) q="expand the methods" <<< cannot find the document
Am I doing something wrong, or is it known bug (I saw similar issues discussed
in
Hi,
This might be known issue, but I cannot find a reference for this specific case
- searching for exact query with synonyms and stopwords.
I have a simple configuration for catch-all field
e:
>> >
>> > > Hi Mikhail, yup, I was trying to avoid putting logic in Solr.
>> > > Just to be a little bit more specific, consider that if the update
>> > factory
>> > > writes a field that has a size of 50.
>> > > The QParser should be aware of th
to be a little bit more specific, consider that if the update
> > factory
> > > writes a field that has a size of 50.
> > > The QParser should be aware of the current size when writing a query.
> > >
> > > Is it possible to have in solrconfig.xml file a shared configu
as a size of 50.
> > The QParser should be aware of the current size when writing a query.
> >
> > Is it possible to have in solrconfig.xml file a shared configuration?
> >
> > I mean a snippet of configuration shared between update processor factory
> > and QParser.
>
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
gic in Solr.
> Just to be a little bit more specific, consider that if the update factory
> writes a field that has a size of 50.
> The QParser should be aware of the current size when writing a query.
>
> Is it possible to have in solrconfig.xml file a shared configuration?
&g
Hi Mikhail, yup, I was trying to avoid putting logic in Solr.
Just to be a little bit more specific, consider that if the update factory
writes a field that has a size of 50.
The QParser should be aware of the current size when writing a query.
Is it possible to have in solrconfig.xml file
. Note, the algorithm assumes that parents' bitmask has the
last doc in the segment set. I.e. 'which' query supplied in runtime should
strictly correspond to the block structure indexed before.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:05 PM Tor-Magne Stien Hagen wrote:
> If I modify the query l
If I modify the query like this:
{!parent which='class:instruction'}class:observation
It still returns a result for the instruction document, even though the
document with class instruction does not have any children...
Tor-Magne Stien Hagen
-Original Message-
From: Mikhail Khludnev
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
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
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 something about named scopes, which I didn't get into yet,
but it might be relevant to the problem.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 1
; 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
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
101 - 200 of 10798 matches
Mail list logo
