Fergus: I have to ask what's driving the push for compactness? General tidiness (of which I actually approve) or something else?
What is the redundancy you're seeing? Just the fact that some fieldTypes will contain *almost* the same set of analyzers? Posting your schema and asking "can we make this smaller" would make this a much easier question to answer, especially if you added some indications of what parts you were dissatisfied with. Best Erick On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Fergus McDowall <fergusmcdow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Param > > Yes, refactoring the various example schema.xml's is what i have been doing > up to now. The end results is usually quite verbose with a lot of redundancy. > What is the most compact possible schema.xml? > > Thanks for the link! > > F > > On 25. jan. 2012, at 17:31, "Sethi, Parampreet" > <parampreet.se...@teamaol.com> wrote: > >> Hi Fergus, >> >> The schema.xml has declaration of fields as well as analyzers/tokenizers >> which are required as per the application demand. The easiest way is to >> modify the schema.xml file which is delivered with >> <apache_solr>/example/solr/conf. >> >> In case you are looking for setting up Solr in front of database with >> minimal manipulation of DB data, you can check it here >> http://www.params.me/2011/03/configure-apache-solr-14-with-mysql.html. I >> am using this setup in of my applications in production. >> >> -param >> >> On 1/25/12 11:10 AM, "Fergus McDowall" <fergusmcdow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Is it do-able/sensible to build a schema.xml from the ground up? >>> >>> Say that you are feeding the results of a database query into solr >>> containing the fields id(int), title(varchar), description(varchar), >>> pub_date(date) and tags(varchar) >>> >>> What would be the simplest schema.xml that could support this structure >>> in Solr? >>> >>> Fergus >>
