Hello,

Sorry to disturb. Is there anyone here able to reproduce and verify this issue?

Many thanks,
Markus 

 
 
-----Original message-----
> From:Markus Jelsma <markus.jel...@openindex.io>
> Sent: Wednesday 9th May 2018 18:25
> To: solr-user <solr-user@lucene.apache.org>
> Subject: Solr 7.3, FunctionScoreQuery no longer displays debug output
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Is this a known problem? For example, the following query:
> q=australia&debug=true&boost=if(exists(query($bqlang)),2,1)&bqlang=lang:en&defType=edismax&qf=content_en
>  content_ro
> 
> returns the following toString for 7.2.1:
> boost(+(Synonym(content_en:australia content_en:australia) | 
> Synonym(content_ro:austral 
> content_ro:australia)),if(exists(query(lang:en,def=0.0)),const(2),const(1)))
> 
> 7.3:
> FunctionScoreQuery(+(Synonym(content_en:australia content_en:australia) | 
> Synonym(content_ro:austral content_ro:australia)), scored by 
> boost(if(exists(query(lang:en,def=0.0)),const(2),const(1))))
> 
> and the following debug output for 7.2.1:
> 
> 11.226025 = boost((Synonym(content_en:australia content_en:australia) | 
> Synonym(content_ro:austral 
> content_ro:australia)),if(exists(query(lang:en,def=0.0)),const(2),const(1))), 
> product of:
>   11.226025 = max of:
>     11.226025 = weight(Synonym(content_ro:austral content_ro:australia) in 
> 6761) [SchemaSimilarity], result of:
>       11.226025 = score(doc=6761,freq=18.0 = termFreq=18.0
> ), product of:
>         5.442921 = idf(docFreq=193, docCount=44720)
>         2.0625 = tfNorm, computed as (freq * (k1 + 1)) / (freq + k1) from:
>           18.0 = termFreq=18.0
>           1.2 = parameter k1
>           0.0 = parameter b (norms omitted for field)
>   1.0 = if(exists(query(lang:en,def=0.0)=0.0),const(2),const(1))
> 
> but for 7.3 i get only:
> 
> 11.226025 = product of:
>   1.0 = boost
>   11.226025 = boost(if(exists(query(lang:en,def=0.0)),const(2),const(1)))
> 
> The scores are still the same, but the debug output is useless. Removing the 
> boost fixes the problem of debug output immediately.
> 
> Thanks,
> Markus
> 
> 

Reply via email to