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 field > name to get back the "original" field name ... what does that mean? > > it seems like what you are describing is having a schema consisting > entirely of dynamic fields where teh suffix determines hte datatype, but > you don't wnat to have to use that suffix when interacting with Solr ... > but if i've got two dynamicFields "*_i" and "*_s" and you refer to "user" > in your query, how is Solr suppose to know wether you want "user_i" or > "user_s" > > If you want people do be able to refer to the field "user" and you want it > to be an integer field, why not definie it as an explicit field instead of > a dynamic field? > > > > -Hoss > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/SQL-Update-tf3358303.html#a9362953 Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
