Yes... we were trying to avoid getting between solr and the user query, but
that's a good suggestion on a relatively simple approach. To make it full
correct, I fear, gets towards a full formal query parser, but we may be able
to slide. For now, we can leave it as a known issue and just let the
I found where this had been asked, but did not find an answer.
Is there a formal definition of the solr query grammar? Like a Chomsky
grammar?
Previous ask:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/FW-Formal-grammar-for-solr-lucene-td4010949.html
--
View this message in context:
We want to treat all optional parameters as required. I thought setting:
q.op=AND and mm=100% (using edismax request handler) would achieve this
result, but I get unexpected results
1) medical = 4,425
2) medical retired = 272
3) medical retired -working = 5,041
4) medical AND retired AND
Thanks for the heads up. Ill keep an eye on the issue. Based on the
comments, there's no workaround, I suppose?
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Unexpected-Results-tp4043107p4043239.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Have been working with Solr for about 6 months, straightforward stuff, basic
keyword searches. We want to move to more advanced stuff, to support 'must
include', 'must not include', set union, etc. I.e., more advanced query
strings.
We seem to have hit a block, and are considering two paths and
