That would be a welcomed feature for sure!
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 6:11 AM, Horváth Péter Gergely <
peter.gergely.horv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> Thank you very much for your inputs. Yes, I do know the aliasing mechanism
> offered in Solr. I think the whole question boils down to one thing: how
> much do you know about the data being stored -- and sometimes you know
> nothing about that.
>
> In some cases, you have to provide a generic solution for users to store
> and query their own data. With Solr / Lucene backing your storage, you can
> easily expose a restricted (but still powerful) subset of the Solr / Lucene
> query syntax for querying user-defined data. Things however would start
> getting complicated if you have to tell your customers, that the field you
> loaded as "foo" must be referred as "foo_s" and the field you loaded "bar"
> must be referred as "bar_i", since it contains a number and so on...
> Implementing the mapping in your application would be overly complex, as
> you would have to maintain a mapping between the internal representation
> ("foo_s") and the query interface ("foo") and alias results from the
> internal format to the format visible to the user ("foo_s" --> "foo"). I
> think you get the idea.
>
> I like the way Solr can use the name for specifying type: having a
> configuration option (either global or at collection level), which tells
> Solr to handle type postfixes slightly differently and strip the type
> prefix automatically would be perfectly enough for this use-case.
>
> Imagine the following approach: if configured so, Solr would still create
> the field based on the type postfix, but would strip it from the name: for
> example, if a document is inserted with the field "foo_s" and "bar_i", Solr
> could create a string field named "foo" and a numeric field "bar".
>
> I think this solution would be both backwards compatible (has to be
> explicitly enabled) and relatively simple to implement in the Solr code
> base. I have created a Jira issue for the feature request:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9150
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks,
> Peter
>
>
>
> 2016-05-19 15:30 GMT+02:00 Steve Rowe <sar...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Peter,
> >
> > It’s an interesting idea. Could you make a Solr JIRA?
> >
> > I don’t know where the field type specification would go, but providing a
> > mechanism to specify field type for previously non-existent fields,
> outside
> > of the field names themselves, seems useful.
> >
> > In the meantime, do you know about field aliasing?
> >
> > 1. You can get results back that rename fields to whatever you want: see
> > the section “Field Name Aliases” here: <
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Common+Query+Parameters
> >.
> >
> > 2. On the query side, eDisMax can perform aliasing so that user-specified
> > field names in queries get mapped to one or more indexed fields: look for
> > “alias” in <
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/The+Extended+DisMax+Query+Parser
> > >.
> >
> > --
> > Steve
> > www.lucidworks.com
> >
> > > On May 19, 2016, at 4:43 AM, Horváth Péter Gergely <
> > peter.gergely.horv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Steve,
> > >
> > > Yes, I know the schema API, however I do not want to specify the field
> > type
> > > problematically for every single field.
> > >
> > > I would like to be able to specify the field type when it is being
> added
> > > (similar to the name postfixes, but without affecting the field names).
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > >
> > > 2016-05-17 17:08 GMT+02:00 Steve Rowe <sar...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > >> Hi Peter,
> > >>
> > >> Are you familiar with the Schema API?: <
> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Schema+API>
> > >>
> > >> You can use it to create fields, field types, etc. prior to ingesting
> > your
> > >> data.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Steve
> > >> www.lucidworks.com
> > >>
> > >>> On May 17, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Horváth Péter Gergely <
> > >> peter.gergely.horv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi All,
> > >>>
> > >>> By default Solr allows you to define the type of a dynamic field by
> > >>> appending a post-fix to the name itself. E.g. creating a color_s
> field
> > >>> instructs Solr to create a string field. My understanding is that if
> we
> > >> do
> > >>> this, all queries must refer the post-fixed field name as well. So
> > >>> instead of a query like color:"red", we will have to write something
> > like
> > >>> color_s:"red" -- and so on for other field types as well.
> > >>>
> > >>> I am wondering if it is possible to specify the data type used for a
> > >> field
> > >>> in Solr 6.0.0, without having to modify the field name. (Or at least
> > in a
> > >>> way that would allow us to use the original field name) Do you have
> any
> > >>> idea, how to achieve this? I am fine, if we have to specify the field
> > >> type
> > >>> during the insertion of a document, however, I do not want to keep
> > using
> > >>> post-fixes while running queries...
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Peter
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
--
Abdel K. Belkasri, PhD
