By SUBTRACT you mean:
Add those docs that apply to fq1 or fq2 but not to fq1 AND fq2 (those, that
apply to one of these fqs but not to both)?
Lance Norskog-2 wrote:
AND/OR/NOT/SUBTRACT combinations for filters would certainly be a
useful feature.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Em
AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: (FQ) Filter Query Caching Differences with OR and AND?
Thank you Jonathan.
fq=foo:barfq=foo:baz seems to be the better alternative for fq=foo:bar
AND foo:baz if foo:bar and foo:baz were often used in different
combinations (not always together
Jonathan I think you are right.
A parser should not know anything about internal caching etc.
However, I can imagine that this could probably become a SearchComponent (as
far as I know SearchComponents can use the filterCache) that manages its own
filterCache.
With an own component we may
Is that good or bad?
Dennis Gearon
- Original Message
From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: Em mailformailingli...@yahoo.de
Sent: Wed, January 5, 2011 1:53:23 PM
Subject: Re: (FQ) Filter Query Caching Differences
And the sky is blue and the night is black shrug
- Original Message
From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Wed, January 5, 2011 2:18:20 PM
Subject: Re: (FQ) Filter Query Caching Differences with OR and AND?
Um
Thank you Jonathan.
fq=foo:barfq=foo:baz seems to be the better alternative for fq=foo:bar
AND foo:baz if foo:bar and foo:baz were often used in different
combinations (not always together).
However, in most of the usecases I can think of, an fq=foo:bar OR
foo:baz-behaviour is expected and it
AND/OR/NOT/SUBTRACT combinations for filters would certainly be a
useful feature.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Em mailformailingli...@yahoo.de wrote:
Thank you Jonathan.
fq=foo:barfq=foo:baz seems to be the better alternative for fq=foo:bar
AND foo:baz if foo:bar and foo:baz were often
