Re: +(-...) vs +(*:* -...) vs -(+...)

Additional reading: https://lucidworks.com/post/why-not-and-or-and-not/ Assuming implicit AND, we perform the following rewrite on strictly negative queries: -f:a -> -f:a *:* Isn't search fun? :-) - Bram On 21/05/2020 20:51, Houston Putman wrote: > Jochen, > > For the standard query parser,

Re: +(-...) vs +(*:* -...) vs -(+...)

On 5/21/2020 12:25 PM, Jochen Barth wrote: why does +(-x_ss:y) finds 0 docs, while -(+x_ss:y) finds many docs? Ok... +(*:* -x_ss:y) works, too, but I'm a bit surprised. Purely negative queries, if that is what ultimately makes it to Lucene, do not work. The basic problem is that if you sta

Re: +(-...) vs +(*:* -...) vs -(+...)

Jochen, For the standard query parser, pure negative queries (no positive query in front of it, such as "*:*") are only allowed as a top level clause, so not nested within parenthesis. Check the second bullet point of the this section of the Ref Guide page for the Standard Query Parser.

+(-...) vs +(*:* -...) vs -(+...)

Dear reader, why does +(-x_ss:y) finds 0 docs, while -(+x_ss:y) finds many docs? Ok... +(*:* -x_ss:y) works, too, but I'm a bit surprised. Kind regards, J. Barth