The pure negative query should work fine as a top level query - it's just when nested as a sub-query within parentheses that it misbehaves.
-- Jack Krupansky On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: > Should be, but it's a bit confusing because the query syntax is not > pure boolean, > so there's no set to take away the docs with entries in field 1, you need > the > match all docs bit, i.e. > *:* -field1:[* TO *] > > (That's asterisk:asterisk -field1:[* TO *] in case the silly list > interprets the asterisks > as markup) > > There's some special magic in filter query processing to handle this case, > but > not in the main query parser. > > Best, > Erick > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Clemens Wyss DEV <clemens...@mysign.ch> > wrote: > > Say I wanted to find documents which have no content in "field1" (or > dosuments that have no field 'field1'), wouldn't that be the following > query? > > -field1:[* TO *] > > > > Thanks for you help > > Clemens > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
