OK, there are several issues here: q= *:* AND CUSTOMER_TYPE_NM:Network Advertiser AND ACTIVE_IND:1&defType=edismax&rows=500&sort=ACCOUNT_CUSTOMER_ID asc&start=0
the *:* is doing you no good, I'd just remove it. defType=edismax probably isn't doing what you expect, you're not specifying any fields (no qf parameter). This is going to your request handler that has ' default="true" ' defined. If you're using a stock example, you're probably searching against the default search field defined in schema.xml, probably a field named "text". If you have a request handler named "edismax", you can use the qt=edismax parameter. If your request handler is named "/edismax", then use either qt=/edismax or solr/edismax?q=.... Attach the &debugQuery=on" and look at the parsed form of the query. But edismax plays nicer than dismax used to, it's probably searching against your default search field. Which is probably NOT CUSTOMER_TYPE_NM. String types are completely unanalyzed, so they're case sensitive. If you want a case-insensitive version, use something like KeywordTokenizer followed by LowerCaseFilter. The admin/analysis page will help you a lot here. I think you'll get a lot of insight into this if you attach &debugQuery=on and look at the <parsedquery> and <parsedquery_tostring> sections (after the results list). Best Erick On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Mark juszczec <mark.juszc...@gmail.com> wrote: > The field's properties are: > > field name="CUSTOMER_TYPE_NM" type="string" indexed="true" stored="true" > required="true" default="CUSTOMER_TYPE_NM_MISSING" > > There have been no changes since I last completely rebuilt the index. > > Is re-indexing done when an index is completely rebuilt with a a > dataimport=full? How about if we've done dataimport=delta? > > If it helps, this is what I get when I print out the ModifiableSolrParams > object I'm sending to the query method: > > q=+*%3A*++AND+CUSTOMER_TYPE_NM%3ANetwork+Advertiser+AND+ACTIVE_IND%3A1&defType=edismax&rows=500&sort=ACCOUNT_CUSTOMER_ID+asc&start=0 > > Mark > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Yonik Seeley > <yo...@lucidimagination.com>wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Mark juszczec <mark.juszc...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > That's what I thought. The problem is, its not and I am unsure what is >> > wrong. >> >> What is the fieldType definition for that field? Did you change it >> without re-indexing? >> >> -Yonik >> http://www.lucene-eurocon.com - The Lucene/Solr User Conference >> >
