On Dec 12, 2009, at 12:08 AM, Lance Norskog wrote: > There are already components (ExtractingRequestHandler, Deduplication) > that secretly add fields which violate the schema. Personally I would > nuke this ability; I've had major problems with junk in the indexed > data and discovering secret fields would have made my head explode > that much louder.
Just as with any dynamic field, the Luke and the LukeRequestHandler are your friends. Which reminds me, I need to mod the patch to have Luke spit out that it is a poly field. I think the thing that is tricky here, is we are actually introducing a new layer of processing on top of Lucene that allows for more complex modeling by doing away with the notion that there is a 1-1 relationship between a FieldType and a Field. Some people want explicit control, while others won't care about the details. > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Yonik Seeley > <yo...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) >> <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: >>> Actually if it was the case that poly field mapped to a single dynamic >>> field, then I would agree with you, but as is the discussion, poly field can >>> map to _many_ dynamic fields, which is where the drift occurs. >> >> I'm not sure if we're using the exact same terminology, but it's well >> defined how many dynamic fields would be created by the basic point >> class (exactly one) *if* we decide to go that route and use that >> option. Can you give an examples of what you mean? Is your objection >> to this point class registering a single dynamic field, or are you >> talking about a hypothetical case? >> >> -Yonik >> http://www.lucidimagination.com >> > > > > -- > Lance Norskog > goks...@gmail.com
