[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8220?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15072846#comment-15072846
]
David Smiley commented on SOLR-8220:
------------------------------------
To be clear I'm not -1 on this; just -0.
I get the gist of the intent with what is committed. Thanks for clarifying
guys.
I think what may _reduce_ the need for users to know about / touch
useDocValuesAsStored (what I hope for) is if conventionally, stored &
doc-values fields are the same field, and then we put tokenized text into some
other field, indexed=true stored=false docValues=false if we also need keyword
search on the field in question. I think this is what Yonik is suggesting.
The only annoyance with this is highlighting -- the highlighters expect the
stored text to be at the same field name as both the query & index.
{{hl.requireFieldMatch}} could be set to false but that's a blunt instrument
and isn't even supported by the postings highlighter. Nonetheless I think this
could be solved in another issue.
Can and should the default/example schemas be adjusted to fit the
aforementioned conventions? Then we wouldn't have any want to set
useDocValuesAsStored in them.
> 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
