Now you've got it Hossman. I don't plan on mucking with the parser syntax. I look at this feature as a smarter default field. Instead of it being one field, it is an array of them constructed via Dismax with various boosts.
~ David hossman wrote: > > > : Either I use defType of DISMAX to get DisjunctionMaxQuery but then I > can't > : use prefix queries and more complicated boolean queries, OR I use the > : standard defType which doesn't use DisjunctionMaxQuery. > > I think I missunderstood your complaint ... it sounds like you don't care > about (or want) the features of hte dismax parser (where the whole point > is to provided a limited user friend syntax that's hard to break) ... you > want clients to be able to send you query strings containing a rich syntax > supporting complex boolean expressions, and prefix queries, AND > DisjunctionMaxQueries. > > The only reason the "StandardRequestHandler" doesn't support that is > because the underlying lucene QueryParser doesn't have any support for > DisjunctionMaxQueries ... adding it in would require picking a syntax and > making some changes to the grammer -- but it could be done. > > : I need this feature ASAP so tonight I plan on enhancing the standard > handler > : to support disjunctionmax if the "qf" boost list is specified. I plan > on > : post-processing the parsed query to rewrite it so that references to a > field > : (a bogus value of some sort) gets replaced with a > sub-DisjunctionMaxQuery. > > that would also work, but if your "q" param is in the standard syntax > (with a special marker term that you look for in post processing) you > still need some other param to know what to build a dismax query out of > with those qf fields. > > > -Hoss > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Standard-vs.-DisMaxQueryHandler-tp6421205p16945850.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
