[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5618?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13984218#comment-13984218
]
Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-5618:
------------------------------------
bq. I dont like this pushing back against completely valid checks.
I don't push back, I'm trying to have a discussion. Why do you assume that
questions indicate push back???
Do you also think that it's OK for a Codec to receive fields it never handled?
If not, we should check that too. That to me indicates a bigger problem than
sending a subset of fields.
I will look into adding another gen to SCI. But if all that we want to achieve
is "That the field numbers it is using are valid!", there's another way to do
that -- we can pass to a Codec a FieldsValidator or something for this purpose.
That way we don't need to pass all FIs to a Codec and don't run into the
PerFieldDVF issue I mentioned above, and don't complicate SCI with another gen.
Just mentioning there are other ways to achieve consistency checks...
> DocValues updates send wrong fieldinfos to codec producers
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-5618
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5618
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 4.9
>
>
> Spinoff from LUCENE-5616.
> See the example there, docvalues readers get a fieldinfos, but it doesn't
> contain the correct ones, so they have invalid field numbers at read time.
> This should really be fixed. Maybe a simple solution is to not write
> "batches" of fields in updates but just have only one field per gen?
> This removes many-many relationships and would make things easy to understand.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
