And what happens if you use a straight Lucene query for the filter query?
Change:
fq={!term+f%3DnavNetwork}nebis
to
fq=navNetwork:nebis
What field type is navNetwork? String or text?
-- Jack Krupansky
-----Original Message-----
From: Günter Hipler
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 11:14 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: use of filter queries in Lucene/Solr Alpha40 and Beta4.0
Hi all,
My query against an index is (I leaved out some of the facet fields)
f.navBranchlib.facet.limit=1000&
facet=on&facet.mincount=1&
facet.limit=100&
bq=navBranchlib:A100^1000&
bq=navBranchlib:UFSW^1000&
start=0&q=+(+%2Bmitbestimmung++)+&
facet.field=navNetwork&
qt=sb-bbfull-01
-> qt refers to an edismax query-parser
I get a result for the navNetwork facets which looks like
<lst name="navNetwork">
<int name="ids">3810</int>
<int name="nebis">2732</int>
<int name="idsbb">1945</int>
</lst>
using a fq Parameter to drill down against the navNetwork facets
facet=on&facet.mincount=1&
facet.limit=100&
q=(+(+%2Bmitbestimmung++)+)&
facet.field=navNetwork&
qt=sb-bbfull-01&
fq={!term+f%3DnavNetwork}nebis
delivers 2806 Documents - instead of the expected 2732
A boolean query instead of the fq is providing the correct result of 2732
documents
facet=on&facet.mincount=1&
facet.limit=100&
%2Bmitbestimmung+%2BnavNetwork:nebis&
facet.field=navNetwork&
qt=sb-bbfull-01&
The behaviour is not consistent. Some of the facets provide the correct
result, some not.
What I can't say for sure: The behaviour was correct (if I'm not wrong)
once the whole index was newly created. After running
some updates I got these results.
The application reflecting this behaviour is available under:
http://sb-tp1.swissbib.unibas.ch
We are using Lucene/SOLR since the end of last year and deployed regularly
the various nightly builds.
The last version this error(?) didn't appear is from March 2012. The
application using it is available under
http://baselbern.swissbib.ch
The target "books and more" is using the Lucene 4.0 march version. The
index is being updated several times a day and uses the same
filter queries as for Lucene/SOLR 4.0 beta and alpha.
My question:
- has something changed in the last versions or is this a bug?
Günter Hipler
