Search with logical terms

[kulens]

It seems that there is a problem with combining search terms and logical operators. For example, I would like to retrieve all documents containing "test1" and "test2".

"test1 and test2"; I got a list of documents, but it seems that the search-engine doesn't include the logical operator. Instead it readers the query as "term1 or and or term2" => I got all the documents containing "test1" or "test2" and even "and"!

"test1 AND test2": This results in an error! It seems that the search-engine within Alfresco can't parse the "AND"

"+test1 +test2": this seems to do the job, but the users aren't aware of this syntax!

So my question, what's going wrong? Users expect to use AND, OR and NOT, but it seems that the system can't handle this! In fact, the user may assume he got the answer to the question, but it's incorrect. Does somebody know a solution to this problem?

[kevinr]

"+test1 +test2" is the syntax. I suggest you let your users know. Also you could raise a JIRA item as an improvement to support AND etc.

Thanks,

Kevin

[#3]

A little up for this topic
I wanted to know if in version 3, this possibility improved : is it possible, now, to search with logical operators like "=", ">", "<" and logical terms like "OR", "AND", …Also, I wanted to know if it's possible to add logical terms like "OU", "ET", etc (I'm French and it could be useful for French companies to implements French terms, because users don't know search terms in English ^^).
As the search stuff is implemented by a specific API, I was just wondering if it was customizable ! The topics I found in the wiki aren't complete about that, or are in construction, as far as I know…

Thanks for your answers

regards,

Benoit Bedeau

[kevinr]

This has not changed in the Explorer web-client. However in the new Alfresco Share interface you can use AND OR NOT with search terms.

In 3.2 we intend to implement a much more powerful query parser across all our clients - so better searching and consistent across the apps.

Cheers,

Kev

[#5]

Thanks for the very quick answer and for the details ^^