I am trying to do a solr dismax query over multiple fields, and am a little confused with the syntax.
My core contains a whole load of podcast episodes. The fields in the index are EPISODE_ID, EPISODE_TITLE, EPISODE_DESC, and EPISODE_KEYWORDS.
Now, when I do a query I would like to search for the query term in the EPISODE_TITLE, EPISODE_DESC, and EPISODE_KEYWORDS fields, with different boosts for the different fields.
So when I search for 'jedi', the query I've built looks like this:
http://localhost:8983/solr/episode_core/select?
&defType=dismax&q=jedi&fl=EPISODE_ID,EPISODE_TITLE,EPISODE_DESC,EPISODE_KEYWORDS
&qf=EPISODE_TITLE^3.0+EPISODE_DESC^2.0+EPISODE_KEYWORDS
However, this doesn't seem to work - it returns zero records.
When I put a default field like below, it now works, but this is kind of crap because it means I'm not getting results from searching all of the 3 fields:
http://localhost:8983/solr/episode_core/select?&df=EPISODE_DESC
&defType=dismax&q=jedi&fl=EPISODE_ID,EPISODE_TITLE,EPISODE_DESC,EPISODE_KEYWORDS
&qf=EPISODE_TITLE^3.0+EPISODE_DESC^2.0+EPISODE_KEYWORDS
Is there something I am missing here? I thought that you could search over multiple fields, and I thought that the 'qf' parameter would mean you didn't need to supply the default field parameter?
All help much appreciated...
Your idea is correct. If you've defined qf (query fields) for Dismax, there shouldn't be any need to specify a df (default field).
Can you be more specific about what isn't working?
Also, read up on Configuration Invariants in solrconfig.xml as it is possible your configuration could be sending some different parameters than you've specified in the URL.
(E.g. if you're seeing a specific error message asking you to provide a df)
Related
i just built a search form backed by solr, we are using the solarium library to construct our requests.
we built a "huge" collection of filterqueries like that one:
$query = $client->createQuery($client::QUERY_SELECT);
$query->setStart(0)->setRows(1000);
$query->addFilterQuery($query->createFilterQuery("foo")->setQuery("bar:true"));
$query->addFilterQuery($query->createFilterQuery("fo")->setQuery("ba:false"));
....
but we realized that the search just hits all the single fields we specify in the filterqueries, but we have to actually query multiple fields. while reading the docs i realized we could have been wrong, right? the correct approach would be to use disMax queries (in combination with facets?)? im wondering, can we use DisMax in combination with filterqueries to "expand" our search to multiple fields (with boosts) ? or do we have to actually rework everything?
im kinda missing the big picture to decide what the best/working solution would be
help is much appreciated
edit:
solr:
solr-spec 7.6.0
solarium:
solarium/solarium 6.0.1 PHP Solr client
You can give a query parser when giving the fq argument:
fq={!dismax qf="firstfield secondfield^5"}this is my query
The syntax is known as Local Parameters. Since dismax (or edismax which you should normally use now) doesn't have a identifier in front of it, it is implicitly parsed as the type.
If a local parameter value appears without a name, it is given the implicit name of "type". This allows short-form representation for the type of query parser to use when parsing a query string.
You'll have to make sure that Solarium doesn't escape the value you give to setQuery, but seeing as you're already giving a field:value combination, it doesn't seem to get escaped. Double check the Solr log to see exactly what query is being sent to Solr (or ask Solarium to give you the exact query string being sent if possible).
Whenever i query with q=: it shows all the documents but when i query with q=programmer 0 docs found.(contents is the default search field)
my schema has: id(unique),author,title,contents fields
Also query works fine for:
q=author:"Value" or q=title:"my book" etc, only for contents field no results.
Also when i query using spell checker(/spell?q=programmer) output shows spelling suggestions for this word,when 'programmer' is the right word and present in many documents.
I referred the example docs for configurations.
All of a sudden i am getting this,initially it worked fine.
I guess there some problem only in the contents field,but cannot figure it out.
Is it because indexes are not created properly for contents field?
(I am using solr 4.2 on Windows 7 with tomcat as webserver)
Please help.Thanks a lot in advance.
Are you sure you set the default search field? The reason you have this problem might be because you didn't set the <defaultSearchField> field in your schema.xml file. This is why "q=author:value" works while q=WHATEVER doesn't.
The Is used by Solr when parsing queries to
identify which field name should be searched in queries where an
explicit field name has not been used.
But also consider this:
The is used by Solr when parsing queries to
identify which field name should be searched in queries where an
explicit field name has not been used. It is preferable to not use or
rely on this setting; instead the request handler or query LocalParams
for a search should specify the default field(s) to search on. This
setting here can be omitted and it is being considered for
deprecation.
Do you have any data in your instance. try q=*:* and see what it returns. "for" is a stop word, may be it was filtered out. Look for something else as value to test.
I implemented Solr SpellCheck Component based on the document from http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SpellCheckComponent , it works good. But i am trying to filter the spell check result based on some other filter. Consider the following schema
product_name
product_text
product_category
product_spell -> copy string from product_name and product_text . And tokenized using white space analyzer
For the above schema, i am trying to filter the spell check result based on provided category. I tried querying like http://127.0.0.1:8080/solr/colr1/myspellcheck/?q=product_category:160%20appl&spellcheck=true&spellcheck.extendedResults=true&spellcheck.collate=true . Spellcheck results does not consider the product_category:160
Is it because the dictionary was build for all the categories? If so is it a good idea to create the dictionary for every category?
Is it not possible to have another filter condition in spellcheck component?
I am using solr 3.5
I previously understood from the SOLR-2010 issue that filtering through the fq parameter should be possible using collation, but it isn't, I think I misunderstood.
In fact, the SpellCheckComponent has most likely a separate index, except for the DirectoSolrSpellChecker implementation. It means the field you select is indexed in a different index, which contains only the information about that specific field you chose to make spelling corrections.
If you're curious, you can also have a look how that additional index looks like using luke, since it's of course a lucene index. Unfortunately filtering using other fields isn't an option there, simply because there is only one field there, the one you use to make spelling corrections.
Let's say I have documents with two fields, A and B.
I'd like to use SOLR's MoreLikeThis, but with a twist: I'm most interested in boosting documents whose A field is like my model document's B field. (That is, extract MLT's 'interesting terms' from the model B field, but only collect MLT results based on the A field.)
I don't see a way to use the mlt.fl fields or mlt.qf boosts to achieve this effect in a single query. (It seems mlt.fl specifies fields used for both discovery of 'interesting terms' and matching to those terms.) Am I missing some option?
Or will I have to extract the 'interesting terms' myself and swap the 'field:term' details?
(Other ideas in this same vein appreciated as well.)
Two options I see are:
Use a copyField - index your original document with a copy of field A named B, and then query using B.
Extend MoreLikeThisHandler and change the fields you query.
The first option costs a bit of programming (mostly configuration changes) and some memory consumption. The second involves more programming but no memory footprint increase. Hope one of them suits your needs.
I now think there are two ways to achieve the desired effect (without customizing the MLT source code).
First option: Do an initial MLT query with the MLT handler, adding the parameter &mlt.interestingTerms=details. This includes the list of terms that were deemed interesting, ranked with their relative boosts. The usual behavior uses those discovered terms against the same mlt.fl fields to find similar documents. For example, the response will include something like:
"interestingTerms":
["field_b:foo",5.0,"field_b:bar",2.9085307,"field_b:baz",1.67070794]
(Since the only thing about this initial query that's interesting is the interestingTerms, throwing in an fq that rules out all docs could help it skip unnecessary scoring work.)
Explicitly re-composing that interestingTerms info into a new OR query field_a:foo^5.0 field_a:bar^2.9085307 field_a:baz^1.67070794 amounts to using the B field example text to find documents that are similar in field A, and may be mimicking exactly the kind of query default MLT does on its usual model field.
Second option: Grab the model document's actual field B text, and feed it directly as a ContentStream body, to be used in lieu of a query, for specifying the model document. Then target mlt.fl at field A for the sake of collecting similar results. For example, a fragment of the parameters might be …&stream.body=foo bar baz&mlt.fl=field_a&…. Again, the net effect being that model text originally from field_b is finding documents similar only in field_a.
Solr newbie here.
I have created a Solr index and write a whole bunch of docs into it. I can see
from the Solr admin page that the docs exist and the schema is fine as well.
But when I perform a search using a test keyword I do not get any results back.
On entering * : *
into the query (in Solr admin page) I get all the results.
However, when I enter any other query (e.g. a term or phrase) I get no results.
I have verified that the field being queried is Indexed and contains the values I am searching for.
So I am confused what I am doing wrong.
Probably you don't have a <defaultSearchField> correctly set up. See this question.
Another possibility: your field is of type string instead of text. String fields, in contrast to text fields, are not analyzed, but stored and indexed verbatim.
I had the same issue with a new setup of Solr 8. The accepted answer is not valid anymore, because the <defaultSearchField> configuration will be deprecated.
As I found no answer to why Solr does not return results from any fields despite being indexed, I consulted the query documentation. What I found is the DisMax query parser:
The DisMax query parser is designed to process simple phrases (without complex syntax) entered by users and to search for individual terms across several fields using different weighting (boosts) based on the significance of each field. Additional options enable users to influence the score based on rules specific to each use case (independent of user input).
In contrast, the default Lucene parser only speaks about searching one field. So I gave DisMax a try and it worked very well!
Query example:
http://localhost:8983/solr/techproducts/select?defType=dismax&q=video
You can also specify which fields to search exactly to prevent unwanted side effects. Multiple fields are separated by spaces which translate to + in URLs:
http://localhost:8983/solr/techproducts/select?defType=dismax&q=video&qf=features+text
Last but not least, give the fields a weight:
http://localhost:8983/solr/techproducts/select?defType=dismax&q=video&qf=features^20.0+text^0.3
If you are using pysolr like I do, you can add those parameters to your search request like this:
results = solr.search('search term', **{
'defType': 'dismax',
'qf': 'features text'
})
In my case the problem was the format of the query. It seems that my setup, by default, was looking and an exact match to the entire value of the field. So, in order to get results if I was searching for the sit I had to query *sit*, i.e. use wildcards to get the expected result.
With solr 4, I had to solve this as per Mauricio's answer by defining type="text_en" to the field.
With solr 6, use text_general.