Many thanks for your suggestions. We do use edismax and bq fields to help with our result ranking, but we'd never thought about using it for this purpose (we were stuck on the copyfield pattern + df pattern). This is a good suggestion though thank you.
We're now exploring the use of the pf field (thanks to Alexandre R. for this) to automatically search on multiple fields, rather than relying on df. Kind regards, Edd -------------------- Edward Turner On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 at 15:44, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: > Have you explored edismax? > > > On Aug 11, 2020, at 10:34 AM, Alexandre Rafalovitch <arafa...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I can't remember if field aliasing works with df but it may be worth a > try: > > > > > https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/8_1/the-extended-dismax-query-parser.html#field-aliasing-using-per-field-qf-overrides > > > > Another example: > > > https://github.com/arafalov/solr-indexing-book/blob/master/published/languages/conf/solrconfig.xml > > > > Regards, > > Alex > > > > On Tue., Aug. 11, 2020, 9:59 a.m. Edward Turner, <eddtur...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Is it possible to have multiple "df" fields? (We think the answer is no > >> because our experiments did not work when adding multiple "df" values to > >> solrconfig.xml -- but we just wanted to double check with those who know > >> better.) The reason we would like to do this is that we have two main > field > >> types (with different analyzers) and we'd like queries without a field > to > >> be searched over both of them. We could also use copyfields, but this > would > >> require us to have a common analyzer, which isn't exactly what we want. > >> > >> An alternative solution is to pre-process the query prior to sending it > to > >> Solr, so that queries with no field are changed as follows: > >> > >> q=value -> q=(field1:value OR field2:value) > >> > >> ... however, we feel a bit uncomfortable doing this though via String > >> manipulation. > >> > >> Is there an obvious way we should tackle this problem that we are > missing > >> (e.g., which would be cleaner/safer and perhaps works at the Query > object > >> level)? > >> > >> Many thanks and best wishes, > >> > >> Edd > >> > >
