Hi Alex and Erick, We could possibly put them in fq, but how we set everything up would make it hard to do so, but going that route might be the only option.
I did take a look at the parsed query and this is the difference: This is the one that works: "-WithinPrefixTreeQuery(fieldName=collection_date_range,queryShape=[2000 TO 2018-09-18],detailLevel=9,prefixGridScanLevel=7) -WithinPrefixTreeQuery(fieldName=collection_date_range,queryShape=[1960 TO 1998-09-18],detailLevel=9,prefixGridScanLevel=7) +IntersectsPrefixTreeQuery(fieldName=collection_season,queryShape=1999-05,detailLevel=9,prefixGridScanLevel=8)" This is the one that does not work "+(-WithinPrefixTreeQuery(fieldName=collection_date_range,queryShape=[2000 TO 2018-09-18],detailLevel=9,prefixGridScanLevel=7) -WithinPrefixTreeQuery(fieldName=collection_date_range,queryShape=[1960 TO 1998-09-18],detailLevel=9,prefixGridScanLevel=7)) +IntersectsPrefixTreeQuery(fieldName=collection_season,queryShape=1999-05,detailLevel=9,prefixGridScanLevel=8)" If someone knows by just looking at these queries why I get no results in the second one, I would appreciate it. From looking at the page Erick pointed out, I do not think it covers my case? ((-X AND -Y) AND Z) Sorry for the trouble and thanks again! Best, Antelmo On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: > Also, Solr does _not_ implement strict Boolean logic, although with > appropriate parentheses you can get it to look like Boolean logic. > See: https://lucidworks.com/2011/12/28/why-not-and-or-and-not/. > > Additionally, for _some_ clauses a pure-not query is translated into > *:* -pure_not_query which is helpful, but occasionally confusing. > > Best, > Erick > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 11:43 AM Alexandre Rafalovitch > <arafa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Have a look at what debug shows in the parsed query. I think every > > bracket is quite significant actually and you are generating a > > different type of clause. > > > > Also, have you thought about putting those individual clauses into > > 'fq' instead of jointly into 'q'? This may give you faster search too, > > as Solr will not have to worry about ranking. > > > > Regards, > > Alex. > > > > On 18 September 2018 at 14:38, Antelmo Aguilar <aagui...@nd.edu> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am doing some date queries and I was wondering if there is some way > of > > > getting this query to work. > > > > > > ( ( !{!field f=collection_date_range op=Within v='[2000-01-01 TO > > > 2018-09-18]'} AND !{!field f=collection_date_range op=Within > v='[1960-01-01 > > > TO 1998-09-18]'} ) AND collection_season:([1999-05 TO 1999-05]) ) > > > > > > I understand that I could just not do NOT queries and instead search > for > > > 1998-09-18 TO 2000-01-01, but doing NOT queries gives me more results > (e.g > > > records that do not have collection_date_range defined). > > > > > > If I remove the parenthesis enclosing the NOT queries, it works. > Without > > > the parenthesis the query does not return results though. So the query > > > below, does work. > > > > > > ( !{!field f=collection_date_range op=Within v='[2000-01-01 TO > > > 2018-09-18]'} AND !{!field f=collection_date_range op=Within > v='[1960-01-01 > > > TO 1998-09-18]'} AND collection_season:([1999-05 TO 1999-05]) ) > > > > > > Any insight would be appreciated. I really do not see the reason why > the > > > parenthesis enclosing the NOT queries would cause it to not return > results. > > > > > > Best, > > > Antelmo >
