I was just wanting to see the Jira clarified (without creating noise on the
Jira), but if others feel they understand the relevance of the outer AND/+
to the stated problem, fine. I don't think I have anything else to add to
the discussion at this stage. Now we sit and wait for some senior
committers to address the concern.
-- Jack Krupansky
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 6:06 AM, Alessandro Benedetti <abenede...@apache.org
> wrote:
> I think what he tried to explain was :
> " Input query : *fl:(java OR book)*
> Instead of having the query parser parsing :
> *+((fl:java fl:book)~2) *( which seems what is happening right now)
> He want the query parser to parse :
>
> +((fl:java fl:book)) ( without the mm expressed)
>
> More than the outer level of AND , I think the concern is in the absence of
> the ~2 operator ( mm=2 set automatically) .
>
> Anyway I can't reproduce the issue :(
>
> P.S. taking a brief look into the code
> : org/apache/solr/search/ExtendedDismaxQParser.java:341
> I suggest you to debug from that point as the comment says :
>
> // For correct lucene queries, turn off mm processing if there
> // were explicit operators (except for AND).
> if (query instanceof BooleanQuery) {
> query = SolrPluginUtils.setMinShouldMatch((BooleanQuery)query,
> config.minShouldMatch, config.mmAutoRelax);
> }
>
> I have no time now,
> Cheers
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:39 AM, Jack Krupansky <jack.krupan...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > You still haven't explained what exactly you are trying to accomplish
> with
> > that outer level AND/+/MUST. Please be specific - why you insist on
> > "+((fl:java
> > fl:book))" rather than "fl:java fl:book".
> >
> > -- Jack Krupansky
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:12 AM, Modassar Ather <modather1...@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > What I understand by "+((fl:java fl:book))" is any of the terms should
> be
> > > present in the complete query. Please correct me if I am wrong.
> > > What I want to achieve is (A OR B) where any of the term or both of the
> > > term will cause a match.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Modassar
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jack Krupansky <
> > jack.krupan...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > That's what I thought you had meant before, but the Jira ticket
> > indicates
> > > > that you are looking for some extra level of AND/MUST outside of the
> > OR,
> > > > which is different from what you just indicated. In the ticket you
> say:
> > > > "How
> > > > can I achieve following? "+((fl:java fl:book))"", which has an extra
> > AND
> > > > outside of the inner sub-query, which is a little different than just
> > > > "(fl:java
> > > > fl:book)". Sure, the results should be the same, but why insist on
> the
> > > > extra level of nested boolean query?
> > > >
> > > > -- Jack Krupansky
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Modassar Ather <
> > modather1...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > What I understand by q.op is the default operator. If there is no
> > > AND/OR
> > > > > in-between the terms the default will be AND as per my setting of
> > > > q.op=AND.
> > > > > But what if the query has AND/OR explicitly put in-between the
> query
> > > > terms?
> > > > > I just think that if (A OR B) is the query then the result should
> be
> > > > based
> > > > > on any of the term's or both of the terms and not only both of the
> > > terms.
> > > > > Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Modassar
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Jack Krupansky <
> > > > jack.krupan...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Now you've confused me... Did you actually intend that q.op=AND
> was
> > > > going
> > > > > > to perform some function in a query with only two terms and and
> OR
> > > > > > operator? I mean, why not just drop the q.op=AND?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -- Jack Krupansky
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Modassar Ather <
> > > > modather1...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jack as suggested I have created following jira issue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8853
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Modassar
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Jack Krupansky <
> > > > > > jack.krupan...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That was precisely the point of the need for a new Jira - to
> > > answer
> > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > the questions that you have posed - and that I had proposed
> as
> > > > well.
> > > > > > > Until
> > > > > > > > some of the senior committers comment on that Jira you won't
> > have
> > > > > > > answers.
> > > > > > > > They've painted themselves into a corner and now I am curious
> > how
> > > > > they
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > unpaint themselves out of that corner.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -- Jack Krupansky
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:46 AM, Modassar Ather <
> > > > > > modather1...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks Jack for your response.
> > > > > > > > > The following jira bug for this issue is already present
> so I
> > > > have
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > created a new one.
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8812
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Kindly help me understand that whether it is possible to
> > > achieve
> > > > > > search
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > ORed terms as it was done in earlier Solr version.
> > > > > > > > > Is this behavior intentional or is it a bug? I need to
> > migrate
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > Solr-5.5.0 but not doing so due to this behavior.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Modassar
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:18 AM, Jack Krupansky <
> > > > > > > > jack.krupan...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We probably need a Jira to investigate whether this
> really
> > is
> > > > an
> > > > > > > > > explicitly
> > > > > > > > > > intentional feature change, or whether it really is a
> bug.
> > > And
> > > > if
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > truly
> > > > > > > > > > was intentional, how people can work around the change to
> > get
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > desired,
> > > > > > > > > > pre-5.5 behavior. Personally, I always thought it was a
> > > mistake
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > q.op
> > > > > > > > > > and mm were so tightly linked in Solr even though they
> are
> > > > > > > independent
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > Lucene.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In short, I think people want to be able to set the
> default
> > > > > > behavior
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > individual terms (MUST vs. SHOULD) if explicit operators
> > are
> > > > not
> > > > > > > used,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > that OR is an explicit operator. And that mm should
> control
> > > > only
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > SHOULD terms are required (Lucene MinShouldMatch.)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -- Jack Krupansky
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 3:41 AM, Modassar Ather <
> > > > > > > > modather1...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Shawn for pointing to the jira issue. I was not
> > sure
> > > > > that
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > an expected behavior or a bug or there could have been
> a
> > > way
> > > > to
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > desired result.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > Modassar
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Shawn Heisey <
> > > > > > > apa...@elyograg.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 3/9/2016 10:55 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The ~2 syntax, when not attached to a phrase query
> > > > (quotes)
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you express a fuzzy query. If it's attached to a
> > query
> > > in
> > > > > > > quotes,
> > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it is a proximity query. I'm not sure whether it
> > means
> > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > > > > > different when it's attached to a query clause in
> > > > > > parentheses,
> > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with more knowledge will need to comment.
> > > > > > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8812
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > After I read SOLR-8812 more closely, it seems that
> the
> > ~2
> > > > > > syntax
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > parentheses is the way that the effective mm value is
> > > > > expressed
> > > > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > particular query clause in the parsed query. I've
> > > learned
> > > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > today.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Shawn
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --------------------------
>
> Benedetti Alessandro
> Visiting card : http://about.me/alessandro_benedetti
>
> "Tyger, tyger burning bright
> In the forests of the night,
> What immortal hand or eye
> Could frame thy fearful symmetry?"
>
> William Blake - Songs of Experience -1794 England
>
