We need no field queries, never, no way. We don't want accidental collisions between a new movie title and an existing fieldname that requires an emergency software push to production.
Same thing for plus, minus, AND, OR, and NOT. Our customers really, really don't do that. They are not native speakers of Boolean. When they type "ROMEO AND JULIET", it is not a tiny program in query language. wunder On 9/11/08 5:17 PM, "Chris Hostetter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > : A free text option would be really nice. When our users type > : "mission:impossible", they are not searching a field named "mission". > > right ... SOLR-405 was a start, but as i recall it didn't deal with the > case where the stuff before the colon wasn't a field name, and it exposed > raw field names to the user. > > ideally what we should have is something where this... > > q=mission:impossible episode:5&qf=title^3 description^2&f.episode.qf=ep_num > > is the same as a booleanquery query combining what you'd get from both of > these... > > q=mission:impossible&qf=title^3 description^2 > q=5&qf=ep_num > > 1) episode is registered as an alias for "ep_num" so naming conventions we > wnat to show users aren't directly tied to internal schema.xml names. > 2) mission isn't treated as a fieldname becuase it's not a registered > alias > > > -Hoss >
