lucene-solr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <>
Subject Re: SOLR-1131: disconnect between fields created by poly fields
Date Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:35:31 GMT

On Dec 12, 2009, at 12:08 AM, Lance Norskog wrote:

> There are already components (ExtractingRequestHandler, Deduplication)
> that secretly add fields which violate the schema. Personally I would
> nuke this ability; I've had major problems with junk in the indexed
> data and discovering secret fields would have made my head explode
> that much louder.

Just as with any dynamic field, the Luke and the LukeRequestHandler are your friends.  Which
reminds me, I need to mod the patch to have Luke spit out that it is a poly field.

I think the thing that is tricky here, is we are actually introducing a new layer of processing
on top of Lucene that allows for more complex modeling by doing away with the notion that
there is a 1-1 relationship between a FieldType and a Field.  Some people want explicit control,
while others won't care about the details.

> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Yonik Seeley
> <> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>> <> wrote:
>>> Actually if it was the case that poly field mapped to a single dynamic
>>> field, then I would agree with you, but as is the discussion, poly field can
>>> map to _many_ dynamic fields, which is where the drift occurs.
>> I'm not sure if we're using the exact same terminology, but it's well
>> defined how many dynamic fields would be created by the basic point
>> class (exactly one) *if* we decide to go that route and use that
>> option.  Can you give an examples of what you mean?  Is your objection
>> to this point class registering a single dynamic field, or are you
>> talking about a hypothetical case?
>> -Yonik
> -- 
> Lance Norskog

View raw message