magibney commented on pull request #129:
URL: https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/129#issuecomment-857888127
>This is incorrect and gets you zero results when you shouldn't
I'll acknowledge that the current behavior seems "incorrect" in principle to
me (though just as incorrect for numeric fields). In terms of practical use
cases, the current behavior strikes me as highly unusual -- but frankly no
_more_ unusual than if the behavior were to be changed to respect `sow=false`.
Perhaps I'm being closed-minded in thinking that what's "incorrect" is the
config itself -- but before declaring the config to be canonically "incorrect"
(and disallowing it), I think an open-minded attempt to brainstorm possible use
cases would be in order.
That's particularly the case because:
1. The change in behavior would be dramatic (for anyone actually relying on
this config); it's also worth noting that the current behavior is not newly
introduced, and I'm not aware of any instances of users expressing confusion
about it in the past (again to be clear, my initial inclination _is_ to
consider `qf` against non-analyzed fields to be "incorrect" in principle)
2. iiuc there'd be no way to migrate current behavior for anyone who wanted
to preserve it
3. There's currently a viable workaround (and a more "search-idiomatic" one
at that, via KeywordTokenizer) for anyone who desires the proposed "correct"
behavior.
Hmm... on second thought maybe wrt point 2:
```xml
<analyzer type="index">
[KeywordTokenizer]
</analyzer>
<analyzer type="query">
[WhitespaceTokenizer]
...
</analyzer>
```
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@solr.apache.org
