lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Shawn Heisey (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Comment Edited] (SOLR-9150) Add configuration option to strip type postfix from dynamic field name on document indexing
Date Tue, 24 May 2016 20:43:12 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9150?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15297154#comment-15297154
] 

Shawn Heisey edited comment on SOLR-9150 at 5/24/16 8:42 PM:
-------------------------------------------------------------

Let's imagine an index that does not have a field named "foo", but does have "\*_i" and "\*_s"
dynamicField entries.

An indexing request comes in with number in a field named "foo_i".  With this feature, this
would put that data into a Lucene field named "foo" ... but at that point, how is Solr supposed
to know that a query on the "foo" field should be treated as a number?  The only way I can
imagine this working without problems is if this action results in a managed_schema update
that *adds* the field named "foo" to the schema with the same definition as "*_i".

As a further thought experiment, what exactly should happen if a subsequent indexing request
contains a field named "foo_s" that holds a non-numeric string?  If the first request containing
foo_i results in foo being added to a managed schema, then a subsequent request with foo_s
would fail, because the incoming data would not be compatible with an integer field.



was (Author: elyograg):
Let's imagine an index that does not have a field named "foo", but does have "*_i" and "*_s"
dynamicField entries.

An indexing request comes in with number in a field named "foo_i".  With this feature, this
would put that data into a Lucene field named "foo" ... but at that point, how is Solr supposed
to know that a query on the "foo" field should be treated as a number?  The only way I can
imagine this working without problems is if this action results in a managed_schema update
that *adds* the field named "foo" to the schema with the same definition as "*_i".

As a further thought experiment, what exactly should happen if a subsequent indexing request
contains a field named "foo_s" that holds a non-numeric string?  If the first request containing
foo_i results in foo being added to a managed schema, then a subsequent request with foo_s
would fail, because the incoming data would not be compatible with an integer field.


> Add configuration option to strip type postfix from dynamic field name on document indexing
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-9150
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9150
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: Server
>    Affects Versions: 6.0
>            Reporter: Peter Horvath
>
> In some cases, incorporating field type indication to the name of a dynamic field is
not desirable. 
> It would be great if there was a configuration option (global, instance level or collection-level),
which instructed Solr to create dynamic fields with the type postfix stripped. 
> For example, suppose the schema contained a dynamic field with a name of "*_i". If the
user attempts to index a document with a "cost_i" field, but no explicit "cost_i" field is
defined in the schema, then a "cost" field (without "_i" postfix) would be created with the
field type and analysis defined for "*_i". As a result queries could be executed against the
dynamic field being referred to without the type indicator postfix: "cost:10"
> To retain backward compatibility, this feature should have to be enabled explicitly.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

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


Mime
View raw message