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
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 disconnect
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 if
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov 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
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
Hi Lance,
On 12/11/09 9:08 PM, Lance Norskog goks...@gmail.com 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
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,
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
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov 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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo