That is always a dangerous assumption. Are you sure you're searching on the proper field? Are you sure it's indexed? Are you sure it's....
The schema browser I indicated above will give you some idea what's actually in the field. You can not only see the fields Solr (actually Lucene) see in your index, but you can also see what some of the terms are. Adding &debug=query and looking at the parsed query will show you what fields are being searched against. The most common causes of what you're describing are: > not searching against the field you think you are. This is very easy to do without knowing it. > not actually having 'indexed="true" set in your schema > not committing after inserting the doc Best, Erick On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Betsey Benagh < betsey.ben...@stresearch.com> wrote: > It looks like the metadata of the PDFs was indexed, but not the content > (which is what I was interested in). Searches on terms I know exist in > the content come up empty. > > On 8/25/16, 2:16 PM, "Betsey Benagh" <betsey.ben...@stresearch.com> wrote: > > >Right, that¹s where I looked. No Œcontent¹. Which is what confused me. > > > > > >On 8/25/16, 1:56 PM, "Erick Erickson" <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>when you say "I don't see it in the schema for that collection" are you > >>talking schema.xml? managed_schema? Or actual documents in the index? > >>Often > >>these are defined by dynamic fields and the like in the schema files. > >> > >>Take a look at the admin UI>>schema browser>>drop down and you'll see all > >>the actual fields in your index... > >> > >>Best, > >>Erick > >> > >>On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Betsey Benagh > >><betsey.ben...@stresearch.com > >>> wrote: > >> > >>> Following the instructions in the quick start guide, I imported a bunch > >>>of > >>> PDF documents into my Solr 6.0 instance. As far as I can tell from the > >>> documentation, there should be a 'content' field indexing, well, the > >>> content, but I don't see it in the schema for that collection. Is > >>>there > >>> something obvious I might have missed? > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> > >>> > > > >
