Left a comment there and added my colleague Andrea for visibility (he worked a lot on that... 13 years ago xD). I honestly don't like the schema property route much, unless we first support the query time get parameter option first. Super happy to discuss and understand why you (impersonal) believe the schema support should be done and why before the excluded syntax support at query time.
Cheers -------------------------- *Alessandro Benedetti* Director @ Sease Ltd. *Apache Lucene/Solr Committer* *Apache Solr Chair of PMC* e-mail: [email protected] *Sease* - Information Retrieval Applied Consulting | Training | Open Source Website: Sease.io <http://sease.io/> LinkedIn <https://linkedin.com/company/sease-ltd> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/seaseltd> | Youtube <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDx86ZKLYNpI3gzMercM7BQ> | Github <https://github.com/seaseltd> On Tue, 10 Nov 2026 at 07:10, David Smiley via dev <[email protected]> wrote: > Sharing for visibility... > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3191 old issue that fizzled but > lots of interest! In essence, the proposal there is a syntax in "fl" to > remove a field like a leading minus. I filed another issue (perhaps > duplicative) that takes a different approach: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-18592 involving a > "matchesWildcard" flag on fields in the schema. Feedback welcome! > > ~ David Smiley > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley >
