: In Lucene you don't need to use a query parser for that, especially
: because range Queries is suboptimal and slow: There is already a very
: fast query/filter available. Ahmet Arslan already mentioned that, we had
: the same discussion a few weeks ago:
: http://find.searchhub.org/document/a
org
> Subject: Re: Looking for docs that have certain fields empty (an/or not set)
>
> Oops... I take that back! After I clicked Send I realized that this is the
> Lucene
> list - what I said is true for Solr queries, but that is because Solr added a
> "hack" to do
Oops... I take that back! After I clicked Send I realized that this is the
Lucene list - what I said is true for Solr queries, but that is because
Solr added a "hack" to do things properly, but the Lucene query parser
doesn't have that hack, so Erick is correct.
-- Jack Krupansky
On Wed, Jan 7, 2
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
wrote:
> Should be, but it's a bit confusing because the query syntax is not
> pure boole
Hi Clemens,
Since you are a lucene user, you might be interested in Uwe's response on a
similar topic :
http://find.searchhub.org/document/abb73b45a48cb89e
Ahmet
On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 6:30 PM, Erick Erickson
wrote:
Should be, but it's a bit confusing because the query syntax is not
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
a
