Hendrik, I would recommend attempting to stick to the query syntax, as it is in lucene, as close as possible.
However, if you do your own query parse build up, you can use a Lucene Query object. I don't know where this bolts into solr, exactly. But I have done this extensively with lucene. The reason was to combine two distinct portions of content into one unified query language. Also, we did some remapping of field names into a normalized user experience. This meant the field names could be exposed in the UI, independent of the metadata of the underlying content. For what I did, the source content could be vastly different from one index to another. Usually this is not the case. You end up building or/and query phrases, then passing it off to the query engine. If you do this, you can also optimize and add boost terms under specific circumstances. If there are a set of required terms/phrases, then you can add terms to boost or remove non-required terms without any loss to the overall result set. This changes the order in which items are returned, so may impact user perception of recall, but is possible under for specific reasons. tim On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 11:40 PM, Hendrik Haddorp <hendrik.hadd...@gmx.net> wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to dynamically modify a query, for example by replacing a > field name with a different one. Given how complex the query parsing is it > does look error prone to duplicate that so I would like to work on the > Lucene Query object model instead. The subclasses of Query look relatively > simple and easy to rewrite on the Lucene side but on the Solr side this > does not seem to be the case. Any suggestions on how this could be done? > > thanks, > Hendrik >
