Actually, I rather agree with your colleagues, but then I'm something of a curmudgeon.
More accurately, unless you _strictly_ control the input documents, you never know what you have in your index. I'd rather have docs fail indexing than be indexed with, say, typos in the field names.... FWIW, Erick On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 6:51 AM, Rick Leir <richard.l...@canadiana.ca> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 12:59 AM, <solr-user-digest-h...@lucene.apache.org> > wrote: > >> >> >Just wondering if folks have any suggestions on using Schema.xml vs. >> >Managed Schema going forward. >> > > > > We are using loosely typed languages (Perl and Javascript), and a loosely > typed DB (CouchDB). This is consistent with running Solr in Schemaless > mode, and doing more unit tests. When you post a doc into Solr containing a > field which has not been seen before, Solr chooses the most appropriate > Type. There is no Java exception and the field data is searchable. You can > discover the Type by looking at the Solr console. We can probably log it > too. > > The new field might be due to us intentionally adding it, though we should > be methodical and systematic about adding new fields. > > Or it could be due to unexpected input to the ingest scripts, (but I > believe these scripts should clean their inputs). > > Or it could be due to a bug in the ingest scripts. In the spirit of TDD, > the ingest scripts should have tests so we can claim they are bug free. > > > However, I brought up this topic with my colleagues here, and they are sure > we should stick with Schema.xml. ".. some level of control and expectation > of exactly what kind of data is in our search system wouldn't be helpful > .." So be it. > Cheers -- Rick
