Thanks for the clarification and pointers Erick! Much appreciated! On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 11:18 AM Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Try q=*:* -boolfield=false > > And it's not as costly as you might think, there's special handling for *:* > queries. And if you put that in an fq clause instead, the result set will > be put into the filter cache and be reused assuming you want to do this > repeatedly. > > BTW, Solr doesn't use strict Boolean logic, which may be a bit confusing. > Google for Chris Hostetter's (Hossman) blog at Lucidwirks for a great > explanation. > > And yes, your understanding of adding a new field is correct > > Best, > Erick > On Mon, May 25, 2020, 11:39 Chris Dempsey <cdal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm new to Solr and made an honest stab to finding this in info the docs. > > > > I'm working on an update to an existing large collection in Solr 7.7 to > add > > a BoolField to mark it as "soft deleted" or not. My understanding is that > > updating the schema will mean the new field will only exist and have a > > value (or the default value) for documents indexed after the change, > > correct? If that's the case, is it possible to query for all documents > that > > have that field set to `true` or if that field is completely missing? If > is > > a Bad Idea(tm) from a performance or resource usage standpoint to use a > > "where field X doesn't exist" query (i.e. am I going to end up running a > > "table scan" if I do)? > > > > Thanks in advance! > > >
