This may be the issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11501
If it turns out that this causing the problem, please create a jira. It's important to discuss how SOLR-11501 is affecting real deployments. Joel Bernstein http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/ On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Adam Constabaris <ajcon...@ncsu.edu> wrote: > Hi folks, > > I am trying to track down what might have changed and where i could tweak a > configuration that worked under Solr 6.5.1 but which is not working as > expected under 7.3.1 or 7.4.0. We have default "qf" and "pf" defeined for > our select handler, along with "special" versions of those for use in > particular kinds of queries; our application (based on Project Blacklight) > make extensive use of local parameter expansion. > > Default query parser is edismax, and we are sending in queries like: > > "q={! qf=$special_qf pf=$special_pf}query terms' > > what used to happen, and what we expect given the documentation at > https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/6_6/local-parameters-in-queries.html > (6.6) and > https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/7_3/local-parameters-in-queries.html > (7.3) is that this should set qf and pf to their 'special' variants, where > the values are pulled from solrconfig.xml/confogoverlay.json (as > appropriate for the version). We can achieve the indended effect via: > > q=query terms&pf=${special_pf}&qf=${special_qf} > > (and we have tested this and it seems to yield the expected behavior) but > this seems like it would be more involved than figuring out *why* the old > syntax isn't working and what we could change in our configset to make it > work again. Our select handler configuration doesn't look particularly > weird: > > The actual values of qf/pf and special_qf/pf are really big, but I created > a 'smaller' configuration for the select handler: > > "requestHandler": { "/select": { "name": "/select", > "class": "solr.SearchHandler", "defaults": { > "defType": "edismax", "echoParams": "explicit", > "rows": 10, "q.alt": "*:*", "mm": "6<90%", > "facet.mincount": "1", "qf": "original_qf_notexpanded^1.5", > "pf": "original_pf_notexpanded^1.5", "sample_qf": > "sample_qf_expanded^2", "sample_pf": "sample_pf_expanded^2" > } }, > > > > What we are seeing when we turn debugging on and look at the parsed query > is something like: > > "parsedquery":"+(DisjunctionMaxQuery(((original_qf_notexpanded:[[7b > 21] TO [7b 21]])^1.5)) > DisjunctionMaxQuery(((original_qf_notexpanded:[[71 66 3d 24 73 61 6d > 70 6c 65 5f 71 66] TO [71 66 3d 24 73 61 6d 70 6c 65 5f 71 66]])^1.5)) > DisjunctionMaxQuery(((original_qf_notexpanded:[[70 66 3d 24 73 61 6d > 70 6c 65 5f 70 66 7d 71 75 65 72 79] TO [70 66 3d 24 73 61 6d 70 6c 65 > 5f 70 66 7d 71 75 65 72 79]])^1.5)) > DisjunctionMaxQuery(((original_qf_notexpanded:[[74 65 72 6d 73] TO [74 > 65 72 6d 73]])^1.5)))~4 ()", > "parsedquery_toString":"+((((original_qf_notexpanded:[[7b 21] TO > [7b 21]])^1.5) ((original_qf_notexpanded:[[71 66 3d 24 73 61 6d 70 6c > 65 5f 71 66] TO [71 66 3d 24 73 61 6d 70 6c 65 5f 71 66]])^1.5) > ((original_qf_notexpanded:[[70 66 3d 24 73 61 6d 70 6c 65 5f 70 66 7d > 71 75 65 72 79] TO [70 66 3d 24 73 61 6d 70 6c 65 5f 70 66 7d 71 75 65 > 72 79]])^1.5) ((original_qf_notexpanded:[[74 65 72 6d 73] TO [74 65 72 > 6d 73]])^1.5))~4) ()", > > the expanded fields are the ones from the default `qf` and `pf` > settings, and so i it looks like the local param syntax is not even > recognized, that it's somehow being "short-circuited". Debug output > indicates edismax parser is still used in this case, and this is true > even if we change our query string to something like: > > q={!lucene ...} > > or > > q={!type=lucene ...} > > We've tried a number of variations, including > > (a) setting the 'sow' parameter to true and false, both inside the > expression and as a standalone parameter > > (b) changing the luceneMatchVersion in the solrconfig (originally it > was 6.0.0, have changed it to match Solr versions, both via > re-uploading teh configset or creating a copy and modifying it before > upload). > > What else should I look at? Changing the searchcomponent stack? > > thanks! > > AC >
