Hoss, thanks a lot for the response. OK, so it seems like I got into to the "uncanny valley" of the search operators:/ I red your attached blog post (and more) but still the penny hasn't dropped yet about what causes the operator clash when the default operator is AND. I red that when q.op=AND, OR will change the left(if not MUST_NOT) and right clause Occurs to SHOULD - what that means is that the "order of operations" in this case is giving the infix operator the mandate to control the prefix operator? A little background - I am trying to implement a google search like service and want to have the ability to have required and prohibit operators while still allowing default intersection operation as default operator. How can I achieve this with this limitation?
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020, 20:08 Chris Hostetter <hossman_luc...@fucit.org> wrote: > > : Using solr 8.3.0 it seems like required operator isn't functioning > properly > : when default conjunction operator is AND. > > You're mixing the "prefix operators" with the "infix operators" which is > always a recipe for disaster. > > The use of q.op=AND vs q.op=OR in these examples only > complicates the issue because q.op isn't really overriding any sort of > implicit > "infix operator" when clauses exist w/o an infix operator between them, it > is overriding the implicit MUST/SHOULD/MUST_NOT given to each clause as > parsed ... but in general setting q.op-AND really only makes sense when > you expect/intend to only be using "infix operators" > > This write up i did several years ago is still very accurate -- the bottom > line is you REALLY don't want to mix infix and prefix operators.. > > https://lucidworks.com/post/why-not-and-or-and-not/ > > ...because the results of mixing them really only "make sense" given the > context that the parser goes left to right (ie: no precedence) and has > no explicit "prefix" operator syntax for "SHOULD" > > > -Hoss > http://www.lucidworks.com/ >
