First... : In-Reply-To: <21051199.p...@talk.nabble.com> : Subject: correct use of copyFields in schema.xml
http://people.apache.org/~hossman/#threadhijack Thread Hijacking on Mailing Lists When starting a new discussion on a mailing list, please do not reply to an existing message, instead start a fresh email. Even if you change the subject line of your email, other mail headers still track which thread you replied to and your question is "hidden" in that thread and gets less attention. It makes following discussions in the mailing list archives particularly difficult. See Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_hijacking Second... : Reviewing the various examples that comes with Solr I cant make up : mind wether the copyFields element should be nested within the : fields element or not. The http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SchemaXml : documentation makes it clear it should be outside, yet a number : of examples have it nested. The copy field parsing code for schema.xml is very forgiving, it should work to have them almost anywhere, but i would suggest you keep them all in one group, it tends to be easier to make sense of what is getting copied where when they are all clustered. : IMHO, being able to nest copyFields inside fields makes for : more self documenting code! it's subjective -- but as i said, prone to confusion: If you mix the directives do you keep the copyField statements near the source <field> or near the destination <field>? .. it's just as important to know where data is coming from as where it's going to. what if the source is a wildcard pattern that matches multiple fields? if they're all in one place, then at least it's easy to go to one place to view them all at once, without having to hunt arround for a directive that might be affecting a field but isn't near it (because it's near the *other* field it refrences) -Hoss
