It might be due to the “uninvertible” property of the field definition. The default value of the property changed from true to false in the recent Solr versions (don’t know which one exactly)
Performance-wise it is much better to use a docValues capable field such as a string field for faceting and sorting, you can keep your original text field and copy it to a new string field using a copyField definition. Or you can set uninvertible to true and reindex if you don’t care about the performance benefits of using docValues:) —Ufuk — > On Jun 16, 2025, at 16:09, Vincenzo D'Amore <v.dam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Solr Community, > > I'm reaching out for help understanding an issue I've encountered after > upgrading from Solr 8 to Solr 9.8.1. Since the upgrade, my facet queries > are returning empty results, even though the indexed data appears to be > intact. > > I've also upgraded the schema version to 1.7 as part of the migration. The > most significant change seems to be related to two custom solr.TextField-based > field types that previously supported faceting in Solr 8 but no longer do > in Solr 9.8.1. > > Here are the field type definitions that are causing trouble: > > <fieldType name="kwd" stored="true" indexed="true" class="solr.TextField"> > <analyzer type="index"> > <tokenizer class="solr.KeywordTokenizerFactory"/> > <filter class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory" /> > </analyzer> > </fieldType> > > <fieldType name="payloads" stored="true" indexed="true" > class="solr.TextField" positionIncrementGap="1000"> > <analyzer type="index"> > <tokenizer class="solr.WhitespaceTokenizerFactory"/> > <filter class="solr.DelimitedPayloadTokenFilterFactory" > encoder="float" delimiter=":"/> > </analyzer> > <analyzer type="query"> > <tokenizer class="solr.WhitespaceTokenizerFactory"/> > </analyzer> > </fieldType> > > These fields used to work fine for faceting in Solr 8. Now, after this > issue or knows if there were changes in Solr 9.x that affect faceting on > TextField types? Are there recommended alternatives or adjustments I should > make to restore facet functionality? > > Any guidance or suggestions would be greatly appreciated! > > Thanks in advance, > Vincenzo > -- > Vincenzo D'Amore
