On Dec 12, 2009, at 12:08 AM, Lance Norskog wrote:
> There are already components (ExtractingRequestHandler, Deduplication)
> that secretly add fields which violate the schema. Personally I would
> nuke this ability; I've had major problems with junk in the indexed
> data and discovering secret f
They don't violate the schema, do they? The fields added from both
of those (and DIH too) all must be either fields or match dynamic
field patterns. Right?
Erik
On Dec 12, 2009, at 6:08 AM, Lance Norskog wrote:
There are already components (ExtractingRequestHandler, Deduplicati
Hi Lance,
On 12/11/09 9:08 PM, "Lance Norskog" wrote:
> There are already components (ExtractingRequestHandler, Deduplication)
> that secretly add fields which violate the schema. Personally I would
> nuke this ability; I've had major problems with junk in the indexed
> data and discovering secr
There are already components (ExtractingRequestHandler, Deduplication)
that secretly add fields which violate the schema. Personally I would
nuke this ability; I've had major problems with junk in the indexed
data and discovering secret fields would have made my head explode
that much louder.
On F
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> Actually if it was the case that poly field mapped to a single dynamic
> field, then I would agree with you, but as is the discussion, poly field can
> map to _many_ dynamic fields, which is where the drift occurs.
I'm not sure if
Hi Grant:
> By declaring the poly field, you are declaring the dynamic field. I don't see
> why this leads to drift. Sure, it is an abstraction and their are Lucene
> fields that will be created under the hood, but that is one of the primary
> features of Solr, it hides all that mess.
Actually
On Dec 10, 2009, at 11:30 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> Hi Yonik,
>
>>> While thinking about SOLR-1131, something important just came to mind. If we
>>> allow poly fields to add fields to the schema (be it via dynamic fields, or
>>> explicit field decls, either way), then we introduce a
Hi Yonik,
>> While thinking about SOLR-1131, something important just came to mind. If we
>> allow poly fields to add fields to the schema (be it via dynamic fields, or
>> explicit field decls, either way), then we introduce a disconnect between
>> the existing XML schema, and the runtime schema i
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> While thinking about SOLR-1131, something important just came to mind. If we
> allow poly fields to add fields to the schema (be it via dynamic fields, or
> explicit field decls, either way), then we introduce a disconnect between
Hi All,
While thinking about SOLR-1131, something important just came to mind. If we
allow poly fields to add fields to the schema (be it via dynamic fields, or
explicit field decls, either way), then we introduce a disconnect between
the existing XML schema, and the runtime schema instance. To my
10 matches
Mail list logo
