David Smiley commented on SOLR-9528:

bq. Special syntax like _docid_ in the sort param made sense in the early days 
of Solr, but feel hackish now that we have first order functions (which are 
clearly a "computed" value, with no ambiguity that it might be stored)

+1 to what you say Hoss. We've got ValueSourceParsers & DocumentTransformers 
now for this sorta thing.

So I suppose this means a Won't-Fix for this issue, and might mean other new 
issues, and possibly a removal of "\_docid\_" in the Ref guide (being 
deprecated, yet still works in some situations (I know it doesn't always work)).

> Make _docid_ (lucene id) a pseudo field
> ---------------------------------------
>                 Key: SOLR-9528
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9528
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>      Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) 
>    Affects Versions: master (7.0)
>            Reporter: Alexandre Rafalovitch
>            Priority: Minor
> Lucene document id is a transitory id that cannot be relied on as it can 
> change on document updates, etc.
> However, there are circumstances where it could be useful to use it in a 
> search. The primarily use is a debugging where some error messages provide 
> only lucene document id as the reference. For example:
> {noformat}
> child query must only match non-parent docs, but parent docID=38200 matched 
> childScorer=class org.apache.lucene.search.DisjunctionSumScorer
> {noformat}
> We already expose the lucene id with \[docid] transformer with \_docid_ 
> sorting.
> On the email list, [~yo...@apache.org] proposed that _docid_ should be a 
> legitimate pseudo-field, which would make it returnable, usable in function 
> queries, etc.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to