lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yonik Seeley <>
Subject Re: [jira] [Commented] (SOLR-2417) Allow explain info directly to response documents
Date Tue, 29 Mar 2011 03:01:14 GMT
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Chris Hostetter
<> wrote:
> : On IRC, yonik suggested that the explain format should mimic follow what
> : the debugQuery parameter would use.
> :
> : I'm don't really agree -- long term I would even suggest dropping the
> : explain section from debug and letting you specify it as an inline
> : parameter.
> those seem like orthoginal issues:
> 1) (ryan) deprecate/remove the explain section from debug and
> tell people to use the "_explain_" psuedo field instead
> 2) (ryan) add options to the _explain_ psuedofield to let you pick
> an explanation style inline (ie: _explain:nl_)
> 3) (yonik) make the _explain_ psuedofield respect the
> debug.explain.structured param (or something like it)
> #1 & #2 don't preclude #3 ... if i always want to get the "nl" mode
> explanations, it would be nice to be able to hardcode something a param
> the defaults section for my handler so that adding the _explain_
> psuedofield just made it happen.

I think we both agreed that _explain_ was a good thing.
The issue was more about this: if explain has different formatting,
how should it be controlled?
I pointed out there was already a parameter to control this.
Ryan had some alternate syntax proposals to allow passing parameters
to transformers (and I was on the fence due to syntax proliferation -
we already have localParams).

And I'm still on the fence - _explain_ alone does not justify a whole
new syntax IMO... so we may need more usecase examples to figure out
what problem we're actually trying to solve.

-Yonik -- Lucene/Solr User Conference, May
25-26, San Francisco

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message