Goodness me, woops, yes, it was a typo -- sorry fo the confusion. We're indeed exploring qf, rather than pf! :). So far it's looking promising!
Thanks for your eagle-eye spotting! Best, Edd -------------------- Edward Turner On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 13:15, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: > Probably a typo but I think you mean qf rather than pf? > > They’re both actually valid, but pf is “phrase field” which will give > different results…. > > Best, > Erick > > > On Aug 12, 2020, at 5:26 AM, Edward Turner <eddtur...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > >>>> > >> > >> > >
