On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Eric Boyer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I would have expected these 2 scenarios to result in the same error. > > Anything that I'm missing or is it just my assumption about how > required fields are handled is flawed? > > Eric,
I can confirm that the required fields are not enforced, except for the unique id field [1]. The `expected_binaries` is actually just a general parse error, not a recognition of a required field missing. I created an issue. https://github.com/basho/riak_search/issues/106 This brings up another point. In order to make Search more focused on indexing KV data I want to remove the solr indexing support. The Solr support in Search is only a subset of that in proper Solr and it doesn't have the same semantics for some of the features it does implement. Furthermore, it puts these docs in a special bucket that isn't obvious and kind of acts like a backdoor into KV. You could still accomplish what you are doing here, the difference is that you would install a Search hook on the bucket and then write the XML (or JSON) to that bucket and the Search hook would automatically extract the fields and analyze based on the schema. What you would lose is ability to do multiple docs in one go and using a regular Solr client (I'm guessing Search's end point supports that but I've never tested it). Does that make any sense? How would you feel if the solr indexing functionality was removed? -Z [1]: https://github.com/basho/riak_search/blob/1.1.2/src/riak_solr_search_client.erl#L69
_______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
