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 instance. To my knowledge >> there is no write-back/flush back for changes made to the schema at >> run-time, and what's loaded on startup (correct me if I'm wrong). > > There are other pros/cons to dynamically inserting field definitions, > but this isn't one of them I think (provided that created fields are > deterministically created at the same time as the poly field.) > There's no need to write-back.
I disagree. Without defining the DynamicField's offline by editing the schema.xml file before running SOLR, if fields are created on-the-fly by a PolyField during SOLR runtime, the schema.xml file is out of sync with the runtime IndexSchema instance. > >> Also, I'm (ack!) now leaning towards >> dynamic fields as a flexible method to do this (so long as they are >> pre-declared in the schema.xml file explicitly) > > I think Grant & I are now on the same page about using dynamic fields. > The remaining issue / option is if one must declare the dynamic > fields in the schema, or if another field type (like a poly field, but > it doesn't have to be) can insert the dynamic field definition if it > doesn't exist. +1. My point is: one must declare the dynamic fields in the schema that the poly fields will use, ahead of time or you risk the drift I'm talking about. > >> -- that way you don't have >> to create (n+10) * m fields for a 10-dimensional point that's stored as well >> as indexed. > > AFAIK, there are no options currently on the table that would create > (or require) field definitions for every poly-type field used. > > So perhaps we are actually all on the same page now (with the open > question of if we should explicit define the dynamic field definition > for the point type that will end up being added to the example > schema). My +1 for being explicit rather than implicit -- let's require the schema.xml editor person to define, ahead-of-time, the dynamicFiels that a polyField will use. This will keep schema.xml and the runtime IndexSchema in sync. Cheers, Chris ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
