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 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. Also, the drift does not occur in the sense that there are more Lucene fields created (fields of course, are Lucene concepts, which true, SOLR should serve as an abstraction to) -- it's in the sense that there are more "dynamic fields" (which are of course, a SOLR concept, and which I'm not sure that SOLR should serve as an abstraction to, and if it does, then schema.xml can be out of sync). So, in other words, with the current thinking, you can have dynamic fields that are created by a poly field that have could have no corresponding entry in schema.xml. That's my point. I think we should enforce that there be an entry in schema.xml to prevent this drift. 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 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
