On 3/8/07, Debra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I could create a list of field name + type, but doing so I might as well
create it and add it to fields in schema.xml.
<>
Alternative solution: write a SQL schema <-> Solr schema mapper.
Should be relatively simple, as long as you are confining yours
: I could create a list of field name + type, but doing so I might as well
: create it and add it to fields in schema.xml.
that was my original point: if you want to be able to refer to a field as
"username" and have it be string, just define it explicitly.
: Does solr reread the schema file whe
I could create a list of field name + type, but doing so I might as well
create it and add it to fields in schema.xml.
Does solr reread the schema file when I post an add action or only on starup
(or someother point)?
In general, I wonder if adding the suffix for dynamic fields is not posing
some
: I wanted to add data from relational database tables.
: To avoid defining each and every table column name in the schema, I thought
: I'll append a suffix to the field name depending on it's type.
which is fine and dandy for when you index the data, mapping your "string"
database column "user",
I wanted to add data from relational database tables.
To avoid defining each and every table column name in the schema, I thought
I'll append a suffix to the field name depending on it's type.
Chris Hostetter wrote:
>
>
> sorry, i'm really not following this talk of "stripping" the dynamic fi
: It would be useful to have a solr setting for stripping the dynamic field
: suffix/prefix on index field name to get back the original field name. Does
: it make sense?
sorry, i'm really not following this talk of "stripping" the dynamic field
name to get back the "original" field name ... what
Thanks Ryan for the quick reply and for your contribution to solr.
I did write some code to generate a xml document from a sql query (generates
a general xml file that with few changes to a properties file will generate
a solr add xml document), so I'll use that for the time being.
Maybe we can
