There is probably a document in your index with the field "word". The json writers may be less tolerant when encountering a field that is not known.
We should perhaps change the json/text based writers to handle this case gracefully also. -Yonik On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Matt Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, the dismax thing was a bad example. So, forget about the qt param > for now. I did however, search the schema and didn't find a reference to > "word". The problem comes in when I switch the wt param from xml to json (or > ruby). > > q=*:*&wt=xml == success > q=*:*&wt=json == error > q=*:*&wt=ruby == error > > Matt > > On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Otis Gospodnetic <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> wrote: > >> Hi Matt, >> >> You need to edit your solrconfig.xml and look for the word "word" in the >> dismax section of the config and change it to "spell". >> >> Otis >> -- >> Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> > From: Matt Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org >> > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 2:08:43 PM >> > Subject: strange difference between json and xml responses >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > A while ago, we had a field called "word" which was used as a spelling >> > field. We switched this to "spell". When querying our solr instance with >> > just q=*:*, we get back the expected results. When querying our solr >> > instance with q=*:*&wt=json, we get this (below). When setting the qt to >> > dismax, the error goes away but no results come back. >> > >> > Is this a bug in the json response writer? Or more than likely, something >> > I'm completely glossing over? >> > >> > Matt >> > HTTP Status 400 - undefined field word >> > ------------------------------ >> > >> > *type* Status report >> > >> > *message* *undefined field word* >> > >> > *description* *The request sent by the client was syntactically incorrect >> > (undefined field word).* >> > ------------------------------ >> > Apache Tomcat/6.0.18 >> >> >
