On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > While thinking about SOLR-1131, something important just came to mind. If we > allow poly fields to add fields to the schema (be it via dynamic fields, or > explicit field decls, either way), then we introduce a disconnect between > the existing XML schema, and the runtime schema instance. To my knowledge > there is no write-back/flush back for changes made to the schema at > run-time, and what's loaded on startup (correct me if I'm wrong).
There are other pros/cons to dynamically inserting field definitions, but this isn't one of them I think (provided that created fields are deterministically created at the same time as the poly field.) There's no need to write-back. > Also, I'm (ack!) now leaning towards > dynamic fields as a flexible method to do this (so long as they are > pre-declared in the schema.xml file explicitly) I think Grant & I are now on the same page about using dynamic fields. The remaining issue / option is if one must declare the dynamic fields in the schema, or if another field type (like a poly field, but it doesn't have to be) can insert the dynamic field definition if it doesn't exist. > -- that way you don't have > to create (n+10) * m fields for a 10-dimensional point that's stored as well > as indexed. AFAIK, there are no options currently on the table that would create (or require) field definitions for every poly-type field used. So perhaps we are actually all on the same page now (with the open question of if we should explicit define the dynamic field definition for the point type that will end up being added to the example schema). -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com
