On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 07:17:43PM +0100, me said:
> It was just an idea though and I was hoping that there would be a
> simpler more orthodox way of doing it.
In the end, for anyone who cares, we used dynamic fields.
There are a lot of them but we haven't seen performance impacted that
badly s
On Sat, Oct 09, 2010 at 06:31:19PM -0400, Erick Erickson said:
> I'm confused. What do you mean that a user can "set any
> number of arbitrarily named fields on a document". It sounds
> like you are talking about a user adding arbitrarily may entries
> to a multi-valued field? Or is it some kind of
I'm confused. What do you mean that a user can "set any
number of arbitrarily named fields on a document". It sounds
like you are talking about a user adding arbitrarily may entries
to a multi-valued field? Or is it some kind of key:value pairs
in a field in your schema?
Under any circumstances, s
On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 04:56:38PM -0700, kenf_nc said:
>
> What behavior are you trying to see? You are allowed to sort on fields that
> are potentially empty, they just sort to the top or bottom depending on your
> sort order. Now, if you Query on the fields that could be empty, you won't
> see
What behavior are you trying to see? You are allowed to sort on fields that
are potentially empty, they just sort to the top or bottom depending on your
sort order. Now, if you Query on the fields that could be empty, you won't
see the result, but if your document is valid for the query, you can s
