Actually, I take that back. Using q instead of fq still produces the same
problem. Somehow it's *less* inconsistent so at first glance it looked like
it fixed it. However, it does *not* fix it :(
--
Steven Ou | 歐偉凡
*ravn.com* | Chief Technology Officer
steve...@gmail.com | +1 909-569-9880
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Steven Ou <steve...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, keeping all other filter queries the same, changing fq=
> category_ids_im:(637+OR+639) to fq=category_ids_im:(637+OR+639+OR+634)
> causes results to not show up.
>
> In fact, I took out *all* other filter queries. And while I wasn't able
> to reproduce it exactly, nonetheless when I added the third category id the
> number of results *went down*. Which is consistently inconsistent, per
> se. Adding an OR cannot, logically, reduce the number of results!
> --
> Steven Ou | 歐偉凡
>
> *ravn.com* | Chief Technology Officer
> steve...@gmail.com | +1 909-569-9880
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Erik Hatcher <erik.hatc...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Yes, certainly should work fine as a filter query... I was merely trying
>> to eliminate variables from the equation. You've got several filters and a
>> q=*:* going on below, so it's obviously harder to pinpoint what could be
>> going wrong. I suggest continuing to eliminate variables here, as more
>> than likely some other filter is causing the documents you think should
>> appear to be filtered out.
>>
>> Erik
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 9, 2012, at 19:24 , Steven Ou wrote:
>>
>> > By turning fq=category_ids_im:(637+OR+639+OR+634) to
>> > q=category_ids_im:(637+OR+639+OR+634)
>> > it appears to produce the correct results. But... that doesn't seem to
>> make
>> > sense to me? Shouldn't it work just fine as a filter query?
>> > --
>> > Steven Ou | 歐偉凡
>> >
>> > *ravn.com* | Chief Technology Officer
>> > steve...@gmail.com | +1 909-569-9880
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Steven Ou <steve...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I don't really know how to analyze the debug output... Here it is for
>> the
>> >> full query I'm running, which includes other filter queries.
>> >>
>> >> <lst name="debug">
>> >> <str name="rawquerystring">*:*</str>
>> >> <str name="querystring">*:*</str>
>> >> <str name="parsedquery">MatchAllDocsQuery(*:*)</str>
>> >> <str name="parsedquery_toString">*:*</str>
>> >> <lst name="explain"/>
>> >> <str name="QParser">LuceneQParser</str>
>> >> <arr name="filter_queries">
>> >> <str>type:Event</str>
>> >> <str>displayable_b:true</str>
>> >> <str>category_ids_im:(637 OR 639 OR 634)</str>
>> >> <str>end_datetime_dt:[2012\-02\-10T00\:17\:52Z TO *]</str>
>> >> <str>{!geofilt}</str>
>> >> </arr>
>> >> <arr name="parsed_filter_queries">
>> >> <str>type:Event</str>
>> >> <str>displayable_b:true</str>
>> >> <str>
>> >> category_ids_im:637 category_ids_im:639 category_ids_im:634
>> >> </str>
>> >> <str>end_datetime_dt:[1328833072000 TO *]</str>
>> >> <str>
>> >>
>> >>
>> SpatialDistanceQuery(geofilt(latlonSource=coordinates_lls(double(coordinates_lls_0_coordinate),double(coordinates_lls_1_coordinate)),latCenter=37.7561438,lonCenter=-122.4325682,dist=50.0,latMin=37.30648363225355,latMax=38.20580396774645,lonMin=-123.0013021058511,lonMax-121.86383429414894,lon2Min=-180.0,lon2Max180.0,calcDist=true,planetRadius=6371.009))
>> >> </str>
>> >> </arr>
>> >> <lst name="timing">
>> >> <double name="time">1.0</double>
>> >> <lst name="prepare">
>> >> <double name="time">1.0</double>
>> >> <lst name="org.apache.solr.handler.component.QueryComponent">
>> >> <double name="time">1.0</double>
>> >> </lst>
>> >> <lst name="org.apache.solr.handler.component.FacetComponent">
>> >> <double name="time">0.0</double>
>> >> </lst>
>> >> <lst name="org.apache.solr.handler.component.MoreLikeThisComponent">
>> >> <double name="time">0.0</double>
>> >> </lst>
>> >> <lst name="org.apache.solr.handler.component.HighlightComponent">
>> >> <double name="time">0.0</double>
>> >> </lst>
>> >> <lst name="org.apache.solr.handler.component.StatsComponent">
>> >> <double name="time">0.0</double>
>> >> </lst>
>> >> <lst name="org.apache.solr.handler.component.DebugComponent">
>> >> <double name="time">0.0</double>
>> >> </lst>
>> >> </lst>
>> >> <lst name="process">
>> >> <double name="time">0.0</double>
>> >> <lst name="org.apache.solr.handler.component.QueryComponent">
>> >> <double name="time">0.0</double>
>> >> </lst>
>> >> <lst name="org.apache.solr.handler.component.FacetComponent">
>> >> <double name="time">0.0</double>
>> >> </lst>
>> >> <lst name="org.apache.solr.handler.component.MoreLikeThisComponent">
>> >> <double name="time">0.0</double>
>> >> </lst>
>> >> <lst name="org.apache.solr.handler.component.HighlightComponent">
>> >> <double name="time">0.0</double>
>> >> </lst>
>> >> <lst name="org.apache.solr.handler.component.StatsComponent">
>> >> <double name="time">0.0</double>
>> >> </lst>
>> >> <lst name="org.apache.solr.handler.component.DebugComponent">
>> >> <double name="time">0.0</double>
>> >> </lst>
>> >> </lst>
>> >> </lst>
>> >> </lst>
>> >> --
>> >> Steven Ou | 歐偉凡
>> >>
>> >> *ravn.com* | Chief Technology Officer
>> >> steve...@gmail.com | +1 909-569-9880
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Steven Ou <steve...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Heh, yeah, I bolded the numbers for emphasis. The field type follows.
>> >>>
>> >>> *Dynamically Created From Pattern: **_IM<
>> http://192.168.1.30:8080/solr/admin/schema.jsp#>
>> >>>
>> >>> *Field Type: *SINT <http://192.168.1.30:8080/solr/admin/schema.jsp#>
>> >>>
>> >>> *Schema: *Indexed, Multivalued, Omit Norms
>> >>>
>> >>> *Index: *(unstored field)
>> >>>
>> >>> *Index Analyzer: *org.apache.solr.schema.FieldType$DefaultAnalyzer
>> >>>
>> >>> *Query Analyzer: *org.apache.solr.schema.FieldType$DefaultAnalyzer
>> >>>
>> >>> *Docs: *33730
>> >>>
>> >>> *Distinct: *528
>> >>> --
>> >>> Steven Ou | 歐偉凡
>> >>>
>> >>> *ravn.com* | Chief Technology Officer
>> >>> steve...@gmail.com | +1 909-569-9880
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Erik Hatcher <erik.hatc...@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> What type of field is category_ids_im?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> And I'm assuming that the *'s below are for emphasis and not really
>> in
>> >>>> your query?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Try your query in the q parameter and turn on debug
>> (&debugQuery=true)
>> >>>> and see how your query is parsing. That'll likely tell all.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Erik
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Feb 9, 2012, at 18:42 , Steven Ou wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Hey guys, I'm stumped - hope someone can help!
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Basically, I'm running a filter query that filters by category (e.g.
>> >>>>> fq=category_ids_im:(637 OR 639 OR 634)). However, it often produces
>> no
>> >>>>> results whatsoever even though each individual query *does* produce
>> >>>> results.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> So, for example, fq=category_ids_im:*637* produces
>> >>>>> results. fq=category_ids_im:*639* produces results.
>> >>>>> fq=category_ids_im:*634* produces
>> >>>>> results. Even fq=category_ids_im:(*637* OR *639*) produces results,
>> as
>> >>>> well
>> >>>>> as fq=category_ids_im:(*639* OR *634*).
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> BUT as soon as I do fq=category_ids_im:(*637* OR *639* OR *634*), it
>> >>>>> produces NO RESULTS!
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Any ideas what might be wrong? Really appreciate any help!
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> Steven Ou | 歐偉凡
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> *ravn.com* | Chief Technology Officer
>> >>>>> steve...@gmail.com | +1 909-569-9880
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>>
>
