[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9529?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15500294#comment-15500294
]
Advertising
Trey Grainger commented on SOLR-9529:
-------------------------------------
Hmm... things were more inconsistent than I thought. There were two fundamental
kinds of inconsistencies:
1) Inconsistencies within a single schema.
--This is what I described in the issue description regarding "*_dts" being
handled incorrectly. I submitted a pull request to fix this in the three places
we actually define both singular and plural field types:
solr/example/files/conf/managed-schema
solr/server/solr/configsets/basic_configs/conf/managed-schema
solr/server/solr/configsets/data_driven_schema_configs/conf/managed-schema
2) Inconsistencies across different schemas
While the three schemas listed above all separate out single valued and
multiValued dynamic fields into different singular and plural field types,
every other schema that ships with Solr only defines a single field type
(string, boolean, etc.) and uses the dynamic field definition to determine
whether the dynamic field should be single or multivalued. This works fine, of
course, but is just inconsistent depending upon which schema file you actually
end up using.
Interestingly, the tech products example
(solr/server/solr/configsets/sample_techproducts_configs/conf/managed-schema),
which sits at the same level as the basic_configs and the
data_driven_schema_configs, for some reason handles these definitions
differently, only defining one field type for both single and multivalued
fields (for all types). The following places do the same thing:
solr/core/src/test-files/solr/collection1/conf/schema-distrib-interval-faceting.xml
solr/core/src/test-files/solr/collection1/conf/schema-docValuesFaceting.xml
solr/core/src/test-files/solr/collection1/conf/schema-docValuesJoin.xml
solr/core/src/test-files/solr/collection1/conf/schema-non-stored-docvalues.xml
solr/core/src/test-files/solr/collection1/conf/schema_latest.xml
solr/example/example-DIH/solr/db/conf/managed-schema
solr/example/example-DIH/solr/mail/conf/managed-schema
solr/example/example-DIH/solr/rss/conf/managed-schema
solr/example/example-DIH/solr/solr/conf/managed-schema
solr/example/example-DIH/solr/tika/conf/managed-schema
So while my pull request fixes #1 so that all schemas are consistent with
themselves, we still have inconsistency across the various schemas that ship
with Solr in terms of what we name the field types for multivalued dynamic
fields. If we are going to make these consistent, which way should we go - have
a single field type for all single and multivalued fields (and define
multivalued=true on the dynamic field definition instead), or separate out
plural versions of the field type (booleans, strings, etc.) for multivalued
fields?
> Dates Dynamic Field Inconsistently Defined in Schemas
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-9529
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9529
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Bug
> Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public)
> Reporter: Trey Grainger
> Priority: Minor
>
> There is a nice convention across all of the schemas that ship with Solr to
> include field types for single valued fields (i.e. "string" -> "*_s",
> "boolean" -> "*_b") and separate field types for multivalued fields (i.e.
> "strings" -> "*_ss", "booleans" -> "*_bs"). Those definitions all follow the
> pattern (using "string" as an example):
> <fieldType name="string" class="solr.StrField" sortMissingLast="true"/>
> <fieldType name="strings" class="solr.StrField" sortMissingLast="true"
> multiValued="true"/>
> <dynamicField name="*_s" type="strings" indexed="true" stored="true"/>
> <dynamicField name="*_ss" type="strings" indexed="true" stored="true"/>
> For some reason, however, the "date" field type doesn't follow this pattern,
> and is instead defined (inconsistently) as follows:
> <fieldType name="date" class="solr.TrieDateField" positionIncrementGap="0"
> precisionStep="0"/>
> <fieldType name="dates" class="solr.TrieDateField" positionIncrementGap="0"
> multiValued="true" precisionStep="0"/>
> <dynamicField name="*_dt" type="date" indexed="true" stored="true"/>
> <dynamicField name="*_dts" type="date" multiValued="true" indexed="true"
> stored="true"/>
> Note specifically that the "*_dts" field should instead be referencing the
> "dates" type and not the "date" type, and that subsequently the
> multiValued="true" setting would become unnecessary on the "*_dts"
> dynamicField definition.
> I'll get a patch posted for this. Note that nothing is functionally broken,
> it's just inconsistent and could be confusing for someone looking through the
> schema or seeing their multivalued dates getting indexed into the field type
> defined for single valued dates.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
