lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steven White <swhite4...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: A defect in Schema API with Add a New Copy Field Rule?
Date Thu, 07 May 2015 14:18:38 GMT
Thanks Steve and Yonik.  This now makes sense.  Updating the doc will be of
a big help.

With regards to deleting a copy-field, what I found is that if I have N
instances of the same copy-field, I have to issue N deletes to remove them
all.  This behavior matches with the add and need to be kept.

Steve

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Steve Rowe <sarowe@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Steve,
>
> It’s by design that you can copyField the same source/dest multiple times
> - according to Yonik (not sure where this was discussed), this capability
> has been used in the past to effectively boost terms in the source field.
>
> The API isn’t symmetric here though: I’m guessing deleting a mutiply
> specified copy field rule will delete all of them, but this isn’t tested,
> so I’m not sure.
>
> There is no replace-copy-field command because copy field rules don’t have
> dependencies (i.e., nothing else in the schema refers to copy field rules),
> unlike fields, dynamic fields and field types, so
> delete-copy-field/add-copy-field works as one would expect.
>
> For fields, dynamic fields and field types, a delete followed by an add is
> not the same as a replace, since (dynamic) fields could have dependent
> copyFields, and field types could have dependent (dynamic) fields.
> delete-* commands are designed to fail if there are any existing
> dependencies, while the replace-* commands will maintain the dependencies
> if they exist.
>
> Steve
>
> > On May 6, 2015, at 6:44 PM, Steven White <swhite4141@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > I am using the Schema API to add a new copy field per:
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Schema+API#SchemaAPI-AddaNewCopyFieldRule
> >
> > Unlike the other "Add" APIs, this one will not fail if you add an
> existing
> > copy field object.  In fact, after when I call the API over and over, the
> > item will appear over and over in schema.xml file like so:
> >
> >  <copyField source="author" dest="text"/>
> >  <copyField source="author" dest="text"/>
> >  <copyField source="author" dest="text"/>
> >  <copyField source="author" dest="text"/>
> >
> > Is this the expected behaviour or a bug?  As a side question, is there
> any
> > harm in having multiple "copyField" like I ended up with?
> >
> > A final question, why there is no Replace a Copy Field?  Is this by
> design
> > for some limitation or was the API just never implemented?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Steve
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message