At 11:17 AM -0800 1/23/07, Chris Hostetter wrote: >my point was just that if you arne't very familiar with teh syntax and >you say: " q=* " you might assuming you'll get all docs -- and unless your >defaultSearchField is something weird, you will get a lot of docs, but not >neccessarily all. if someone searches for: " q=[* TO *] " then they >probably didn't just guess that, they probably know something about the >syntax, and are more likely to realize they are just searching a single >(default field).
I respectfully disagree. By the same argument, q=heaven would lead to the expectation that all documents with the word 'heaven' would be returned. But that's not the expectation -- it's that a field-unqualified clause will be qualified by the default field, whether it evaluates to a TermQuery, PhraseQuery, PrefixQuery, RangeQuery, RegexpQuery, WildcardQuery, etc. -- with '*' being -conceptually- understood as a form of PrefixQuery with a null prefix, as Yonik said: >It's just that it normally surprises people that they can do foo:a* >and not foo:* If the field qualification is dropped, it should operate the same way on the default field. >: *:* to find all documents regardless of field seems good to me, where >: as simply * or [* TO *] would use the default field. > >i guess what i'm saying is that while i like the syntax of " q=field:* " >to mean everything with a value in that field, i don't think it's worth >adding it if as a side effect " q=* " becomes a legal expression that >does the same thing for hte default field, because it will be more >missleading. I see things differently here too... an uneducated user doesn't know field names, an educated user does. If an uneducated user is frustrated with field-unqualified queries e.g. q=word not returning all documents with that word, the first thing they are going to learn is q=*:word; extending to q=*:* is pretty natural, IMHO. - J.J.
