Sorry Eric.
I will check and raise it under SOLR project.
Thanks!
Mark.
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:43 PM, Erick Erickson
wrote:
> Mark:
>
> KYLIN-1644? This should be SOLR-. I suspect you entered the JIRA
> in the wrong Apache project.
>
>
> Erick
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Mark
Mark:
KYLIN-1644? This should be SOLR-. I suspect you entered the JIRA
in the wrong Apache project.
Erick
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Mark Robinson wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> I have raised a JIRA:- *KYLIN-1644* with the problem mentioned.
>
> Thanks!
> Mark.
>
> On Sun, May 1, 2016
Hi Eric,
I have raised a JIRA:- *KYLIN-1644* with the problem mentioned.
Thanks!
Mark.
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Mark Robinson
wrote:
> Thanks much Eric for checking in detail.
> Yes I found the first term being left out in pf.
> Because of that I had some cases where a couple of unw
Thanks much Eric for checking in detail.
Yes I found the first term being left out in pf.
Because of that I had some cases where a couple of unwanted records came in
the results with higher priority than the normal ones. When I checked they
matched from the 2nd term onwards.
As suggested I wud rai
Looks like a bug in edismax to me when you field-qualify
the terms.
As an aside, there's no need to specify the field when you only
want it to go against the fields defined in "qf" and "pf" etc. And,
that's a work-around for this particular case. But still:
So here's what I get on 5x:
q=(erick me
Hi,
q=productType:(two piece bathtub white)
&defType=edismax&pf=productType^20.0&qf=productType^15.0
In the debug section this is what I see:-
(+(productType:two productType:piec productType:bathtub productType:white)
DisjunctionMaxQuery((productType:"piec bathtub white"^20.0)))/no_coord
My qu
