First, Solr does _not_ implement boolean logic. It can look like it, but that’s sugar. See: https://lucidworks.com/post/why-not-and-or-and-not/
As for (1), I haven’t a clue. If you’d provided the results of adding &debug=query to the query, the parsed version would have given us some pointers. (2) Yes, See the reference above. the NOT (-) operator is really “from the results so far, remove everything that satisfies this clause”. But just -field_to_exclude:[* TO *] has nothing to remove things that satisfy this clause _from_. And a couple of nits: There’s no need for the AND, again, see the reference above. ((*:* -field_to_exclude:*)) would work just fine. Second, and just to confuse you, the *:* is not required in fq clauses, there’s some special logic to handle fq=-field_to_exclude:* that implies the *:* that you’d have to put in a “q” clause. Third, field_to_exclude:* is actually fairly inefficient, fq=-field_to_exclude:[* TO *] can be more efficient. The reasons are rather arcane... Best, Erick > On Sep 11, 2020, at 10:18 AM, Iana Bondarska <yana2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > I'm checking Solr query that contains condition "Exclude all documents that > contain ceratin field". > Currently, it looks like this: > *(*:* AND -field_to_exclude:*)* > > Full query is: > *((some_other_field:"value") AND ((*:* AND -field_to_exclude:*)))* > > If I use defType=edismax, nothing is found. If I use default defType - I > get correct results, same as when I do not specify *:* in non-exists > condition. > > My questions are: > 1) why defType "edismax" leads to empty results? > 2) do we really need to include clause "**:**" in non-exists condition? > Isn't *-field_to_exclude:* *enough? > -- > Best Regards, > Iana Bondarska
