I think this is related to http://search-lucene.com/m/lM9CXH2Pl7

Also as explained here http://search-lucene.com/m/g4JmKSGMaI/ 
it is better to use + - operator rather than OR AND NOT parenthesis.

http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/BooleanQuerySyntax

Just for your information: There is no such syntax 'date <= 2010-12-15' that 
returns documents having date less than or equal to 2010-12-15. 


--- On Wed, 12/15/10, Tommaso Teofili <tommaso.teof...@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Tommaso Teofili <tommaso.teof...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Parenthesis in query string
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Date: Wednesday, December 15, 2010, 7:24 PM
> Hi all,
> I've just noticed a strange behavior (or, at least, I
> didn't expect that),
> when adding useless parenthesis to a query.
> Using the lucene query parser in Solr I get no results with
> the query:
> 
> * ((( NOT (text:"something"))) AND date <= 2010-12-15)
> *
> 
> while I get the expected results when the query is :
> 
> *( NOT (text:"something") AND date <= 2010-12-15) *
> 
> Setting the debugQuery=true param I get this for the first
> query sample:
> <str name="rawquerystring">
> ((( NOT (text:"something"))) AND data <= 2010-12-15)
> </str>
> <str name="querystring">
> ((( NOT (text:"something"))) AND data <= 2010-12-15)
> </str>
> <str name="parsedquery">
> +(-PhraseQuery(text:"something")) +text:dat
> PhraseQuery(text:"2010 12 15")
> </str>
> <str name="parsedquery_toString">
> +(-text:"something") +text:dat text:"2010 12 15"
> </str>
> 
> while I get the following in the second (right) query
> sample:
> <str name="rawquerystring">
> ( NOT (text:"something") AND data <= 2010-12-15)
> </str>
> <str name="querystring">
> ( NOT (text:"something") AND data <= 2010-12-15)
> </str>
> <str name="parsedquery">
> -PhraseQuery(text:"something") +text:dat
> PhraseQuery(text:"2010 12 15")
> </str>
> <str name="parsedquery_toString">
> -text:"something" +text:dat text:"2010 12 15"
> </str>
> 
> Is that something expected and I am missing something or
> it's a bug?
> Thanks in advance.
> Regards,
> Tommaso
> 


      

Reply via email to