> Both solutions are working fine for
> me. I guess the fq performance is
> slower though, or?
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FilterQueryGuidance
Both solutions are working fine for me. I guess the fq performance is
slower though, or?
Thanks for your feedback.
On 1/17/11 7:51 PM, Erick Erickson wrote:
> As Ahmet says, this is what dismax does. You could also append a
> filter query (fq=crawl:DIGITALDATA) to your query.
>
> eDismax supports
As Ahmet says, this is what dismax does. You could also append a
filter query (fq=crawl:DIGITALDATA) to your query.
eDismax supports fielded queries, see:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1553
This is already in the trunk and 3.x code lines I'm pretty sure.
Best
Erick
On Mon, Jan 17,
> It looks like there's some problem with my dismax query
> handler. It
> doesn't recognize the query with the colon format.
> Here's the handler definition:
It is expected behavior of dismax. You can append/use &defType=lucene for colon
format.
Thanks for your answer.
Yes, schema browser shows that the field contains the right values as i
expect.
From debugQuery=on i see there must be some problem though:
crawl:DIGITALDATA
crawl:DIGITALDATA
+DisjunctionMaxQuery((contentEN:"crawl
(digitaldata crawldigitaldata)"^0.8 | title:"crawl (digi
String fields are unanalyzed, so case matters. Are you sure you're not
using a different case (try KeywordTokenizer + lowercaseFilter if you
want these normalized to, say, lower case).
If that isn't the problem, could we see the results if you add
&debugQuery=on
to your URL? That often helps diagn
