On 9/26/2016 3:56 AM, Sandeep Khanzode wrote:
> Hi Alex, It seems that this is not an issue with AND clause. For
> example, if I do ... field1:value1 AND -field2:value2 ... the results
> seem to be an intersection of both. Is this an issue with OR? Which is
> which we replace it with an implicit
Sure. Noted.
Thanks for the link ... SRK
On Monday, September 26, 2016 8:29 PM, Erick Erickson
wrote:
Please do not cross post to multiple lists, it's considered bad
etiquette.
Solr does not implement strict boolean logic, please read:
Please do not cross post to multiple lists, it's considered bad
etiquette.
Solr does not implement strict boolean logic, please read:
https://lucidworks.com/blog/2011/12/28/why-not-and-or-and-not/
Best,
Erick
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 2:58 AM, Alexandre Rafalovitch
wrote:
>
I don't remember specifically :-(. Search the archives
http://search-lucene.com/ or follow-up on Solr Users list. Remember to
mention the version of Solr, as there were some bugs/features/fixes
with OR, I think.
Regards,
Alex.
Newsletter and resources for Solr beginners and intermediates:
Hi Alex,
It seems that this is not an issue with AND clause. For example, if I do ...
field1:value1 AND -field2:value2
... the results seem to be an intersection of both.
Is this an issue with OR? Which is which we replace it with an implicit (*:*
NOT)? SRK
On Monday, September 26, 2016
Yup. That works. So does (*:* NOT ...)
Thanks, Alex. SRK
On Monday, September 26, 2016 3:03 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch
wrote:
Try field2:value2 OR (*:* -field1=value1)
There is a magic in negative query syntax that breaks down when it
gets more complex. It's been
Try field2:value2 OR (*:* -field1=value1)
There is a magic in negative query syntax that breaks down when it
gets more complex. It's been discussed on the mailing list a bunch of
times, though the discussions are hard to find by title.
Regards,
Alex.
Newsletter and resources for Solr