Thanks Steve and Yonik. This now makes sense. Updating the doc will be of a big help.
With regards to deleting a copy-field, what I found is that if I have N instances of the same copy-field, I have to issue N deletes to remove them all. This behavior matches with the add and need to be kept. Steve On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Steve Rowe <sar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Steve, > > It’s by design that you can copyField the same source/dest multiple times > - according to Yonik (not sure where this was discussed), this capability > has been used in the past to effectively boost terms in the source field. > > The API isn’t symmetric here though: I’m guessing deleting a mutiply > specified copy field rule will delete all of them, but this isn’t tested, > so I’m not sure. > > There is no replace-copy-field command because copy field rules don’t have > dependencies (i.e., nothing else in the schema refers to copy field rules), > unlike fields, dynamic fields and field types, so > delete-copy-field/add-copy-field works as one would expect. > > For fields, dynamic fields and field types, a delete followed by an add is > not the same as a replace, since (dynamic) fields could have dependent > copyFields, and field types could have dependent (dynamic) fields. > delete-* commands are designed to fail if there are any existing > dependencies, while the replace-* commands will maintain the dependencies > if they exist. > > Steve > > > On May 6, 2015, at 6:44 PM, Steven White <swhite4...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > I am using the Schema API to add a new copy field per: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Schema+API#SchemaAPI-AddaNewCopyFieldRule > > > > Unlike the other "Add" APIs, this one will not fail if you add an > existing > > copy field object. In fact, after when I call the API over and over, the > > item will appear over and over in schema.xml file like so: > > > > <copyField source="author" dest="text"/> > > <copyField source="author" dest="text"/> > > <copyField source="author" dest="text"/> > > <copyField source="author" dest="text"/> > > > > Is this the expected behaviour or a bug? As a side question, is there > any > > harm in having multiple "copyField" like I ended up with? > > > > A final question, why there is no Replace a Copy Field? Is this by > design > > for some limitation or was the API just never implemented? > > > > Thanks > > > > Steve > >
