Actually, the dismax thing was a bad example. So, forget about the qt param for now. I did however, search the schema and didn't find a reference to "word". The problem comes in when I switch the wt param from xml to json (or ruby).
q=*:*&wt=xml == success q=*:*&wt=json == error q=*:*&wt=ruby == error Matt On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Otis Gospodnetic <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > Hi Matt, > > You need to edit your solrconfig.xml and look for the word "word" in the > dismax section of the config and change it to "spell". > > Otis > -- > Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Matt Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 2:08:43 PM > > Subject: strange difference between json and xml responses > > > > Hi, > > > > A while ago, we had a field called "word" which was used as a spelling > > field. We switched this to "spell". When querying our solr instance with > > just q=*:*, we get back the expected results. When querying our solr > > instance with q=*:*&wt=json, we get this (below). When setting the qt to > > dismax, the error goes away but no results come back. > > > > Is this a bug in the json response writer? Or more than likely, something > > I'm completely glossing over? > > > > Matt > > HTTP Status 400 - undefined field word > > ------------------------------ > > > > *type* Status report > > > > *message* *undefined field word* > > > > *description* *The request sent by the client was syntactically incorrect > > (undefined field word).* > > ------------------------------ > > Apache Tomcat/6.0.18 > >
