[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-265?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12505950
]
Ryan McKinley commented on SOLR-265:
------------------------------------
I haven't looked at the patch, but have a couple questions:
* What is the motivation/use case for editing the schema at runtime? (I'm not
suggesting there aren't good ones, just curious)
* Would changes be saved?
* Why not dynamic fields?
> it seems to me that restarting a webapp and suffering
> downtime is a heavy price to pay just to add a new field or even to just
> change an existing field property.
*adding* fields should be relatively straightforward -- the more I learn about
lucene indexing(indexes), it seems like most schema *changes* require the index
to be rebuilt anyway.
> Make IndexSchema updateable in live system
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-265
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-265
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: update
> Affects Versions: 1.3
> Reporter: Will Johnson
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 1.3
>
> Attachments: IndexSchemaReload.patch
>
>
> I've seen a few items on the mailing lists recently surrounding updating a
> schema on the file system and not seeing the changes get propagated. while I
> think that automatically detecting schema changes on disk may be unrealistic,
> I do think it would be useful to be able to update the schema without having
> to bounce the webapp. the forthcoming patch adds a method to SolrCore to do
> just that as well as a request handler to be able to call said method.
> The patch as it exists is a straw man for discussion. The one thing that
> concerned me was making IndexScheam schema non-final in SolrCore. I'm not
> quite sure why it needs to be final to begin with so perhaps someone can shed
> some light on the situation. Also, I think it would be useful to be able to
> upload a schema through the admin GUI, have it persisted to disk and then
> call relaodSchema()but that seemed like a good bit of effort for a patch that
> might not even be a good idea.
> I'd also point out that this specific problem is one I've been trying to
> address recently and while I think it could be solved with various dynamic
> fields the combination of all the options for fields seemed to create too
> many variables to make useful dynamic name patterns.
> Thoughts?
> - will
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
