I answered my own question, looks like the field infos are always read within the IndexSearcher so that cost is already being paid.
I would potentially have to duplicate information in multiple fields if it was present at multiple authorization levels, is there a limit to the number of fields within a document? I'm also concerned this might skew my search results as terms that had more authorizations would appear in more fields and would result in more matches on query. I'll play with this a little but I am still wondering about my original question. On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Jamie Johnson <jej2...@gmail.com> wrote: > I had thought about this in the past, but thought it might be too > expensive. I guess in a search component I could look up all of the fields > that are in the index and only run queries against fields they should be > able to see once I know what is in the index (this is what you're > suggesting right?). > > My concern would be that the number of fields per document would grow too > large to support this. Our controls aren't simple like user or admin they > are complex combinations of authorizations so I would think there might be > a large number of fields that are generated using this approach. Would > retrieving all field infos from Solr be expensive on each request to see > what they should be able to query? > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Why don't you handle it all at the app level? Here's what I mean: >> >> I'm assuming that you're using edismax here, but the same principle >> applies if not. >> >> Your handler (say the "/select" handler) has a "qf" parameter which >> defines >> the fields that are searched over in the absence of a field qualifier, >> e.g. >> q=whatever&qf=title,description >> >> causes the search term to be looked for in the two fields "title" and >> "description" >> You can also set up the qf fields in the "/select" handler as one of >> the items in >> the <defaults> section.... >> >> But, the qf param in the <defaults> section is just that... a default. >> So individual >> queries can override it. What I have in mind is that you'd look up the >> user's >> field-access list and append that list as necessary to the query and >> just pass it >> on through. >> >> Things to watch out for: >> 1> if the user specifies a field, you'll have to strip that off if >> they don't have rights, >> i.e. q=field1:whatever whenever >> ignores the qf parameter for "whatever" but does respect the qf param >> for "whenever". >> 2> If you have some kind of date field say that you want to facet >> over, you'd have >> to control that. >> 3> if you have a "bag of words" where you use copyField to add a bunch >> of field's >> data to an uber-field then the user can infer some things from that >> info, so you probably >> don't want to be careful about what copyFields you use. >> >> Best, >> Erick >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Jamie Johnson <jej2...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > I am looking for a way to prevent fields that users shouldn't be able to >> > know exist from contributing to the score. The goal is to provide a >> way to >> > essentially hide certain fields from requests based on an access level >> > provided on the query. I have managed to make terms that users >> shouldn't >> > be able to see not impact the score by implementing a custom Similarity >> > class that looks at the terms payloads and returns 0 for the score if >> they >> > shouldn't know the field exists. The issue however is that I don't have >> > access to the request at this point so getting the users access level is >> > proving problematic. Is there a way to get the current request that is >> > being processed via some thread local variable or something similar that >> > Solr maintains? If not is there another approach that I could be using >> to >> > access information from the request within my Similarity implementation? >> > Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. >> > >> > -Jamie >> > >
