Mailing-List: contact solr-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of insight49@gmail.com designates
 209.85.218.214 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:disposition-notification-to:date:from:user-agent
         :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=jQr49EnsfnqAzTfH8bkESx7Vz77WMOgpSqKRuu9kPYIa4s06UmWaNs9PMJ4sAJpRFd
         gf6XVuj441J2umK6lmiqPyT/p9DL55T3PWce9fQBWKo+l1Cq8kIZ1jxEd/WJEysS3n05
         pqD6i59XoduTaFrNrYy9d93V3Q/yzAFR/y5dA=
Message-ID: <4AB100F9.9070600@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:15:05 -0600
From: "Insight 49, LLC" <insight49@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: CSV Update - Need help mapping csv field to schema's ID
References: <4AAD2161.3050104@gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0909151710550.27546@radix.cryptio.net>
 <c68e39170909151725x7abde006ga4eb73264edcbb15@mail.gmail.com>
 <7AE54DAF-7643-4412-88AA-C0AFAA9EE9D0@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <7AE54DAF-7643-4412-88AA-C0AFAA9EE9D0@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Darn. I hate when I create work for people.

My need is to take a csv file, use the CSV update handler, but then add 
an additional copyfield (sku from csv to id from schema) to create a 
unique id for each record.

Thanks guys. Terrific work on SOLR.

Dan


Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> 
> On Sep 15, 2009, at 8:25 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> 
>> Darn... I shouldn't trust my memory.
>> From http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-284
>> '''drop "ext." from parameter names, and revisit naming to try and
>> unify with other update handlers like CSV'''
>>
>> So now map.a=b in CSV is for values but map.a=b in SolrCell is for 
>> fields....
>> perhaps we should change map in SolrCell to fmap?
> 
> That's fine by me.  Just update the docs when you're done.
> 
>>
>> My longer range idea was to pull out some generally useful things like
>> field mapping, etc, such that they could be shared across update
>> handlers.
> 
> See also:
>  SOLR-1032, SOLR-1069 for related things.  We should be able to refactor 
> the field mapping code easy enough.
>