lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (LUCENE-3153) Adding field w/ norms should fail if same field was added w/o norms already
Date Thu, 09 May 2013 23:05:48 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3153?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-3153:
----------------------------------

    Fix Version/s:     (was: 4.3)
                   4.4
    
> Adding field w/ norms should fail if same field was added w/o norms already
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-3153
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3153
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: core/index
>            Reporter: Shai Erera
>             Fix For: 4.4
>
>
> A spinoff from LUCENE-3146. Consider the following two scenarios, according to how 4.0
currently works:
> * Field "a" is added w/ norms. Sometime later field "a" is added to a document w/o norms
-- norms are disabled for field "a", for all docs.
> * Field "a" is added w/o norms - norms are disabled for field "a". Sometime later field
"a" is added to a document w/ norms -- app thinks norms were added, while in fact they are
dropped.
> This is a bug and case #2 should fail on add/updateDocument - app should know norms were
not added. While case #1 isn't great either, it's the only way an app can choose to disable
norms for field "a", after instances of it already contain norms, so we should support that
scenario.
> In order to detect that early, we should track norms info in .fnx, as Mike describes
at LUCENE-3146. Since this changes the index format, we should also update the "file format"
page after we do it.
> Not sure what's the deal w/ 3.x indexes that are read by 4.0 code. Initially they won't
have .fnx file, so no central norms information exist to detect the cases I've described above.
Over time, as segments are merged, .fnx will include information from more and more segments,
but there's always a chance few segments will still contain the norms for field "a". I'm not
very familiar w/ that part of the code, but I think that:
> * If .fnx says "no norms for field a", the we ignore any norms information that may or
may not exist in segments.
> * If .fnx says "norms for field a", then we need to make up some norms values for (old)
segments w/ no norms? We need to make up values during segment merge and search?

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message