Thanks. I read through this discussion and got it to work by setting q.op=OR when mm is set, and then it worked as it previously did.
I have two suggestions that may clarify things a little going forward. First, as I read the documentation it does not seem clear to me that q.op is intended to be used with the edismax (or dismax) query parsers. The "common query parameters" page: https://cwiki.apache. org/confluence/display/solr/Common+Query+Parameters does not list q.op as a parameter. This parameter is listed on the "standard query parameters" page: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/ The+Standard+Query+Parser but not in the dismax page: https://cwiki.apache. org/confluence/display/solr/The+DisMax+Query+Parser. For clarity it seems like q.op should be added to the dismax page with a note about how its behavior relates to mm? Also, I use the Solr web interface to do test queries while debugging. This web interface has no field for q.op as far as I can see, so with (e)dismax the mm field does not work effectively with the web interface. Thank you for your help, Nick On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch <arafa...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it is the change in the OR and AND treatment that had been > confusing a number of people. There were discussions before on the > mailing list about it, for example > http://search-lucene.com/m/eHNlzBMAHdfxcv1 > > Regards, > Alex. > ---- > Solr Example reading group is starting November 2016, join us at > http://j.mp/SolrERG > Newsletter and resources for Solr beginners and intermediates: > http://www.solr-start.com/ > > > On 7 October 2016 at 10:24, Nick Hall <darknovan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I'm working on upgrading a Solr installation from 4.0 to 6.2.1 and have > > everything mostly working but have hit a snag. I kept the schema > basically > > the same, just made some minor changes to allow it to work with the new > > version, but one of my queries is working differently with the new > version > > and I'm not sure why. > > > > In version 4.0 when I do a query with edismax like: > > > > "params":{ > > "mm":"3", > > "debugQuery":"on", > > "indent":"on", > > "q":"string1 string2 string3 string4 string5", > > "qf":"vehicle_string_t^1", > > "wt":"json", > > "defType":"edismax"}}, > > > > I get the results I expect, and the debugQuery shows: > > > > "rawquerystring":"string1 string2 string3 string4 string5", > > "querystring":"string1 string2 string3 string4 string5", > > "parsedquery":"+((DisjunctionMaxQuery((vehicle_string_t:\"string > 1\")) > > DisjunctionMaxQuery((vehicle_string_t:\"string 2\")) > > DisjunctionMaxQuery((vehicle_string_t:\"string 3\")) > > DisjunctionMaxQuery((vehicle_string_t:\"string 4\")) > > DisjunctionMaxQuery((vehicle_string_t:\"string 5\")))~3)", > > "parsedquery_toString":"+(((vehicle_string_t:\"string 1\") > > (vehicle_string_t:\"string 2\") (vehicle_string_t:\"string 3\") > > (vehicle_string_t:\"string 4\") (vehicle_string_t:\"string 5\"))~3)", > > > > > > But when I run the same query with version 6.2.1, debugQuery shows: > > > > "rawquerystring":"string1 string2 string3 string4 string5", > > "querystring":"string1 string2 string3 string4 string5", > > "parsedquery":"(+(+DisjunctionMaxQuery((vehicle_string_t:\"string > 1\")) > > +DisjunctionMaxQuery((vehicle_string_t:\"string 2\")) > > +DisjunctionMaxQuery((vehicle_string_t:\"string 3\")) > > +DisjunctionMaxQuery((vehicle_string_t:\"string 4\")) > > +DisjunctionMaxQuery((vehicle_string_t:\"string 5\"))))/no_coord", > > "parsedquery_toString":"+(+(vehicle_string_t:\"string 1\") > > +(vehicle_string_t:\"string 2\") +(vehicle_string_t:\"string 3\") > > +(vehicle_string_t:\"string 4\") +(vehicle_string_t:\"string 5\"))", > > > > > > You can see that the key difference is that in version 4 it uses the "~3" > > to indicate the mm, but in 6.2.1 it doesn't matter what I have mm set to, > > it always ends with "/no_coord" and is trying to match all 5 strings even > > if mm is set to 1, so mm is being completely ignored. > > > > I imagine there is some behavior that changed between 4 and 6.2.1 that I > > need to adjust something in my configuration to account for, but I'm > > scratching my head right now. Has anyone else seen this and can point me > in > > the right direction? Thanks, > > > > Nick >
