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: http://www.solr-start.com/ On 26 September 2016 at 16:56, Sandeep Khanzode <sandeep_khanz...@yahoo.com.invalid> 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 (*:* > NOT)? SRK > > On Monday, September 26, 2016 3:09 PM, Sandeep Khanzode > <sandeep_khanz...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote: > > > Yup. That works. So does (*:* NOT ...) > Thanks, Alex. SRK > > On Monday, September 26, 2016 3:03 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch > <arafa...@gmail.com> 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 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 beginners and intermediates: > http://www.solr-start.com/ > > > On 26 September 2016 at 16:06, Sandeep Khanzode > <sandeep_khanz...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: >> Hi, >> If I query for >> -field1=value1 ... I get, say, 100 records >> and if I query for >> field2:value2 ... I may get 200 records >> >> I would assume that if I query for >> -field1:value1 OR field2:value2 >> >> ... I should get atleast 100 records (assuming they overlap, if not, upto >> 300 records). I am assuming that the default joining is OR. >> But I do not ... >> The result is that I get less than 100. If I didn't know better, I would >> have said that an AND is being done. >> >> I am expecting records that EITHER do NOT contain field1:value1 OR which >> contain field2:value2. >> >> Please let me know what I am missing. Thanks. >> >> SRK > > > > >
