Thanks Erik
Here is the output,

http://localhost:8983/solr/filesearch/select?fq=id:1193&q.alt=*:*&debugQuery=true


   - parsedquery: "+MatchAllDocsQuery(*:*)",



http://localhost:8983/solr/filesearch/select?fq=id:1193&q=*:*&debugQuery=true


   - parsedquery: "+DisjunctionMaxQuery((user_email:*:* | user_name:*:* |
   tags:*:* | (name_shingle_zh-cn:, , name_shingle_zh-cn:, ,) | id:*:*)~0.01)
   DisjunctionMaxQuery(((name_shingle_zh-cn:", , , ,"~100)^100.0 |
   tags:*:*)~0.01)",



I find it perplexing as the default values for qf and pf are very different
from above so I am not sure where these fields are coming from (although
they are all valid fields)
e.g. following query uses the my expected set of pf and qf.

http://localhost:8983/solr/filesearch/select?fq=id:1193&q=hello&debugQuery=true



   - parsedquery: "+DisjunctionMaxQuery(((name_token:hello)^60.0 |
   user_email:hello | (name_combined:hello)^10.0 | (name_zh-cn:hello)^10.0 |
   name_shingle:hello | comments:hello | user_name:hello | description:hello |
   file_content_zh-cn:hello | file_content_de:hello | tags:hello |
   file_content_it:hell | file_content_fr:hello | file_content_es:hell |
   file_content_en:hello | id:hello)~0.01)
   DisjunctionMaxQuery((description:hello | (name_shingle:hello)^100.0 |
   comments:hello | tags:hello)~0.01)",





On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hmm, seems odd. What happens when you attach &debug=query? I'm curious how
> the parsed queries differ.
>
> On Jan 4, 2018 15:14, "Nawab Zada Asad Iqbal" <khi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > In my SearchHandler solrconfig, i have q.alt=*:* . This allows me to run
> > queries which only have `fq` filters and no `q`.
> >
> > If I remove q.alt from the solrconfig and specify `q=*:*` in the query
> > parameters, it does not give any results. I also tried `q=*` but of no
> > avail.
> >
> > Is there some good reason for this behavior? Since I already know a work
> > around, this question is only for my curiosity.
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > Nawab
> >
>

Reply via email to