Thank Shawn and Tim, The following line addresses my issue. > prodAllGeneric_txt_sort:"Phi; " OR (*:* -prodAllGeneric_txt_sort:[* TO *]) Besides, your explanation is very helpful. Kind regards, Zhiqing
On Tue, 17 May 2022 at 02:45, Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org> wrote: > On 5/16/2022 2:32 PM, WU, Zhiqing wrote: > > (Note: prodAllGeneric_txt_sort is a field, X is the details of a query) > > > > If X is "(prodAllGeneric_txt_sort:\"Phi; \")", Solr finds 3 documents > > If X is "(-prodAllGeneric_txt_sort:*)", Solr finds 8 documents > > If X is "(prodAllGeneric_txt_sort:\"Phi; \") OR > > (-prodAllGeneric_txt_sort:*)", Solr only find 3 documents. > > What is wrong? I think Solr should find 11 documents. It seems OR does > not > > work this time. > > You're running into a little quirk of Lucene query syntax. That quirk > is that you can't actually do a purely negative query. > > The only reason that your middle query even works is that Solr is able > to detect the unworkable query and fix it for you behind the scenes. If > you provided that query to Lucene directly, it probably wouldn't work. > The third query is too complex for Solr to detect the problem. > > When you use that kind of syntax what you are telling Lucene is that you > want to subtract documents from the resultset. So what your third query > ends up being parsed as (in plain language): > > "Start with all documents that match a specific string in this field, > and then subtract all documents where this field exists." So you get the > three documents you started with, because the second clause in the query > is a subtraction. > > You've also got an extreme inefficiency because you're using a wildcard > query. A range query is FAR more efficient. > > What you want to send to get the results you want as efficiently as > possible is this (which does not include the quote escaping that was in > what you pasted): > > prodAllGeneric_txt_sort:"Phi; " OR (*:* -prodAllGeneric_txt_sort:[* TO *]) > > I did not include the parentheses around the first clause because they > are unnecessary for that syntax. If your actual query is more > complicated, then you might want to re-add them. > > Thanks, > Shawn > >
