The test doesn't have anything to do with faceting, though. Wasn't sure
that you were specifically looking for a faceting test with docValues=true,
indexed=false, or just a general one.

On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 4:48 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Erick,
> As part of working on SOLR-5944, I wrote a few tests with docValues=true,
> indexed=false, stored=false. You can find it in the latest patch there. The
> schema file is called: schema-inplace-updates.xml, and one of the tests
> using that schema is: TestInPlaceUpdatesDistrib
> Regards,
> Ishan
>
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 4:56 AM, Mikhail Khludnev <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Sure. It make sense. Probably, no one added them yet, because if we facet
>> something, it's reasonably that we filter by this field then.
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Erick Erickson <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Am I missing something or do our tests for DocValues=true,
>>> indexed=false tests... lack a little something for distributed mode?
>>>
>>> I'm trying to write a unit test for SOLR-5260 and piggy-backing on
>>> DistributedFacetExistsSmallTest. I'm having some problems there, which
>>> led me to start looking at other prior art and basically I can't find
>>> much.
>>>
>>> What I want: docValues=true, indexed=false in distributed mode. I
>>> found some schemas that have that, notably schema-docValues.xml but I
>>> don't find it (or some of the others) in  the distributed tests.
>>>
>>> If we're pushing docValues for grouping, faceting and sorting and
>>> claiming that to accomplish that we don't need to have indexed=true we
>>> should, of course, have, you know, like, tests.
>>>
>>> So before I go and create a new test file for this configuration, I
>>> wanted to ask if I'm missing any prior art here.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Erick
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sincerely yours
>> Mikhail Khludnev
>>
>
>

Reply via email to