[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3153?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13041611#comment-13041611
]
Simon Willnauer commented on LUCENE-3153:
-----------------------------------------
bq. Maybe we should not move "omits norms" bit into fnx and continue leaving
the checking as "best effort"?
the .fnx file is the way to go here. We can even move hasProx there too
eventually.
simon
> Adding field w/ norms should fail if same field was added w/o norms already
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3153
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3153
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: core/index
> Reporter: Shai Erera
> Fix For: 4.0
>
>
> A spinoff from LUCENE-3146. Consider the following two scenarios, according
> to how 4.0 currently works:
> * Field "a" is added w/ norms. Sometime later field "a" is added to a
> document w/o norms -- norms are disabled for field "a", for all docs.
> * Field "a" is added w/o norms - norms are disabled for field "a". Sometime
> later field "a" is added to a document w/ norms -- app thinks norms were
> added, while in fact they are dropped.
> This is a bug and case #2 should fail on add/updateDocument - app should know
> norms were not added. While case #1 isn't great either, it's the only way an
> app can choose to disable norms for field "a", after instances of it already
> contain norms, so we should support that scenario.
> In order to detect that early, we should track norms info in .fnx, as Mike
> describes at LUCENE-3146. Since this changes the index format, we should also
> update the "file format" page after we do it.
> Not sure what's the deal w/ 3.x indexes that are read by 4.0 code. Initially
> they won't have .fnx file, so no central norms information exist to detect
> the cases I've described above. Over time, as segments are merged, .fnx will
> include information from more and more segments, but there's always a chance
> few segments will still contain the norms for field "a". I'm not very
> familiar w/ that part of the code, but I think that:
> * If .fnx says "no norms for field a", the we ignore any norms information
> that may or may not exist in segments.
> * If .fnx says "norms for field a", then we need to make up some norms values
> for (old) segments w/ no norms? We need to make up values during segment
> merge and search?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
