[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8220?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15072185#comment-15072185
]
Ishan Chattopadhyaya commented on SOLR-8220:
--------------------------------------------
David, do you think having the copyField targets to have useDocValuesAsStored
as false in our example schemas partly alleviates the problem?
In fact, I was planning to open another issue to add a few more dynamic field
types that have stored=false, docValues=true in the example schemas. I can add
this change to copyFields too, if it makes sense.
Or, rather, do you prefer useDocValuesAsStored to be false by default and
turned on on-demand? I think that will make adoption harder, and make it harder
for us (or iow more of an abrupt change for user) to get rid of stored fields
(even if it makes sense performance wise some day). Having this as the default
now (i.e. useDocValuesAsStored=true) would make the transition less abrupt.
What do you think?
> Read field from docValues for non stored fields
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-8220
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8220
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Keith Laban
> Assignee: Shalin Shekhar Mangar
> Attachments: SOLR-8220-5x.patch, SOLR-8220-branch_5x.patch,
> SOLR-8220-ishan.patch, SOLR-8220-ishan.patch, SOLR-8220-ishan.patch,
> SOLR-8220-ishan.patch, SOLR-8220.patch, SOLR-8220.patch, SOLR-8220.patch,
> SOLR-8220.patch, SOLR-8220.patch, SOLR-8220.patch, SOLR-8220.patch,
> SOLR-8220.patch, SOLR-8220.patch, SOLR-8220.patch, SOLR-8220.patch,
> SOLR-8220.patch, SOLR-8220.patch, SOLR-8220.patch, SOLR-8220.patch,
> SOLR-8220.patch, SOLR-8220.patch, SOLR-8220.patch, SOLR-8220.patch,
> SOLR-8220.patch, SOLR-8220.patch, SOLR-8220.patch, SOLR-8220.patch,
> SOLR-8220.patch, SOLR-8220.patch, SOLR-8220.patch, SOLR-8220.patch,
> SOLR-8220.patch
>
>
> Many times a value will be both stored="true" and docValues="true" which
> requires redundant data to be stored on disk. Since reading from docValues is
> both efficient and a common practice (facets, analytics, streaming, etc),
> reading values from docValues when a stored version of the field does not
> exist would be a valuable disk usage optimization.
> The only caveat with this that I can see would be for multiValued fields as
> they would always be returned sorted in the docValues approach. I believe
> this is a fair compromise.
> I've done a rough implementation for this as a field transform, but I think
> it should live closer to where stored fields are loaded in the
> SolrIndexSearcher.
> Two open questions/observations:
> 1) There doesn't seem to be a standard way to read values for docValues,
> facets, analytics, streaming, etc, all seem to be doing their own ways,
> perhaps some of this logic should be centralized.
> 2) What will the API behavior be? (Below is my proposed implementation)
> Parameters for fl:
> - fl="docValueField"
> -- return field from docValue if the field is not stored and in docValues,
> if the field is stored return it from stored fields
> - fl="*"
> -- return only stored fields
> - fl="+"
> -- return stored fields and docValue fields
> 2a - would be easiest implementation and might be sufficient for a first
> pass. 2b - is current behavior
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
