[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8220?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15013915#comment-15013915
 ] 

Yonik Seeley commented on SOLR-8220:
------------------------------------

bq. I think you meant a type.docValuesType() == DocValuesType.NONE. I agree, we 
should make the change.

I don't think some of the Lucene folks want docValues modeled as stored fields 
at the Lucene level (i.e. you don't index them that way, and you don't retrieve 
them that way).

One possible option is just move to something higher lievel like SolrDocument.

bq. I propose we add a {{fl.wildcardDV=true}} option to turn on this behavior 
in Solr 5x but enable it by default in 6.
We could bump the schema number to change the default, and that would enable 
the folks on 5x to get transparent migration from stored fields to docValues if 
they want w/o having to change clients / query params.

And if finer grained control is desirable, a schema field flag actAsStored=true 
(or whatever better name people come up with) could have it's default set 
differently based on the schema version.



> Read field from docValues for non stored fields
> -----------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-8220
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8220
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Keith Laban
>         Attachments: SOLR-8220-ishan.patch, SOLR-8220-ishan.patch, 
> SOLR-8220-ishan.patch, SOLR-8220-ishan.patch, SOLR-8220.patch, 
> SOLR-8220.patch, SOLR-8220.patch, SOLR-8220.patch, SOLR-8220.patch
>
>
> Many times a value will be both stored="true" and docValues="true" which 
> requires redundant data to be stored on disk. Since reading from docValues is 
> both efficient and a common practice (facets, analytics, streaming, etc), 
> reading values from docValues when a stored version of the field does not 
> exist would be a valuable disk usage optimization.
> The only caveat with this that I can see would be for multiValued fields as 
> they would always be returned sorted in the docValues approach. I believe 
> this is a fair compromise.
> I've done a rough implementation for this as a field transform, but I think 
> it should live closer to where stored fields are loaded in the 
> SolrIndexSearcher.
> Two open questions/observations:
> 1) There doesn't seem to be a standard way to read values for docValues, 
> facets, analytics, streaming, etc, all seem to be doing their own ways, 
> perhaps some of this logic should be centralized.
> 2) What will the API behavior be? (Below is my proposed implementation)
> Parameters for fl:
> - fl="docValueField"
>   -- return field from docValue if the field is not stored and in docValues, 
> if the field is stored return it from stored fields
> - fl="*"
>   -- return only stored fields
> - fl="+"
>    -- return stored fields and docValue fields
> 2a - would be easiest implementation and might be sufficient for a first 
> pass. 2b - is current behavior



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to