Okay, sounds reasonable. However I didn't expect this when reading the
documentation of the dismax query parser.
Especially the need to escape special characters (and which ones) was
not clear to me as the dismax query parser "is designed to process
simple phrases (without complex syntax) entered by users" and "special
characters (except AND and OR) are escaped" by the parser - as written
on https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/The+DisMax+Query+Parser
Do you know if the new Simple Query Parser has the same behaviour when
searching across multiple fields? Or could it be used instead to search
across "text_general" and "string" fields of arbitrary content without
additional query preprocessing to get results for matches in any of
these fields (as in field1:STUFF OR field2:STUFF).
Thank you,
Andreas
Jack Krupansky wrote on 10/07/2014 05:24 PM:
I think what is happening is that your last term, the naked apostrophe
is analyzing to zero terms and simply being ignored, but when you add
the extra field, a string field, you now have another term in the
query, and you have mm set to 100%, so that "new" term must match. It
probably fails because you have no naked apostrophe term in that field
in the index.
Probably none of your string field terms were matching before, but
that wasn't apparent since the tokenized text matched. But with this
naked apostrophe term, there is no way to tell Lucene to match "no"
term, so it requried the string term to match, which won't happen
since only the full string is indexed.
Generally, you need to escape all special characters in a query. Then
hopefully your string field will match.
-- Jack Krupansky
-----Original Message----- From: Andreas Hubold
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:14 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: dismax query does not match with additional field in qf
Hi,
I ran into a problem with the Solr dismax query parser. We're using Solr
4.10.0 and the field types mentioned below are taken from the example
schema.xml.
In a test we have a document with rather strange content in a field
named "name_tokenized" of type "text_general":
abc_<iframe src='loadLocale.js'
onload='javascript:document.XSSed="name"' width=0 height=0>
(It's a test for XSS bug detection, but that doesn't matter here.)
I can find the document when I use the following dismax query with qf
set to field "name_tokenized" only:
http://localhost:44080/solr/studio/editor?deftype=dismax&q=abc_%3Ciframe+src%3D%27loadLocale.js%27+onload%3D%27javascript%3Adocument.XSSed%3D%22name%22%27&debug=true&echoParams=all&qf=name_tokenized^2
If I submit exactly the same query but add another field "feederstate"
to the qf parameter, I don't get any results anymore. The field is of
type "string".
http://localhost:44080/solr/studio/editor?deftype=dismax&q=abc_%3Ciframe+src%3D%27loadLocale.js%27+onload%3D%27javascript%3Adocument.XSSed%3D%22name%22%27&debug=true&echoParams=all&qf=name_tokenized^2%20feederstate
The decoded value of q is: abc_<iframe src='loadLocale.js'
onload='javascript:document.XSSed="name"' and it seems the trailing
single-quote causes problems here. (In fact, I can find the document
when I remove the last char)
The parsed query for the latter case is
(
+((
DisjunctionMaxQuery((feederstate:abc_<iframe |
((name_tokenized:abc_ name_tokenized:iframe)^2.0))~0.1)
DisjunctionMaxQuery((feederstate:src='loadLocale.js' |
((name_tokenized:src name_tokenized:loadlocale.js)^2.0))~0.1)
DisjunctionMaxQuery((feederstate:onload='javascript:document.XSSed= |
((name_tokenized:onload
name_tokenized:javascript:document.xssed)^2.0))~0.1)
DisjunctionMaxQuery((feederstate:name | name_tokenized:name^2.0)~0.1)
DisjunctionMaxQuery((feederstate:')~0.1)
)~5)
DisjunctionMaxQuery((textbody:"abc_ iframe src loadlocale.js onload
javascript:document.xssed name" | name_tokenized:"abc_ iframe src
loadlocale.js onload javascript:document.xssed name"^2.0)~0.1)
)/no_coord
I've configured the handler with <str name="mm">100%</str> so that all
of the 5 dismax queries at the top must match. But this one does not
match:
DisjunctionMaxQuery((feederstate:')~0.1)
I'd expect that an additional field in the qf parameter would not lead
to fewer matches.
Okay, the above example is a rather crude test but I'd like to
understand it. Is this a bug in Solr?
I've also found https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3047 which
sounds somewhat similar.
Regards,
Andreas
.
