That’s an interesting point…. The _root_ stuff has evolved over time and this is kind of an example of it! I think it does make sense that some of these special fields like _root_ have some smarts around the interactions with other types of field mappings.
> On Jan 26, 2022, at 9:49 AM, Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org> wrote: > > On 1/26/22 07:24, Eric Pugh wrote: >> Shawn, should having a dynamic field called “*” trigger either a warning in >> the logs or maybe even be forbidden? Is there a use case for having “*”? > > While I think that it's a bad idea to have a dynamic field entry that matches > everything, I don't want to limit what people can do. I don't know that we > should forbid it, but a warning that it could produce unexpected behavior > might be a good idea. > > I think that the reason the wildcard field entry caused problems in this > situation is because the definition caused the _root_ field to not be > indexed. I'm not familiar with nested documents enough to be sure about > this, but I think when Solr sees a _root_ field in a doc and therefore > enables code related to nested docs, it requires that field to be indexed. > > Thanks, > Shawn > _______________________ Eric Pugh | Founder & CEO | OpenSource Connections, LLC | 434.466.1467 | http://www.opensourceconnections.com <http://www.opensourceconnections.com/> | My Free/Busy <http://tinyurl.com/eric-cal> Co-Author: Apache Solr Enterprise Search Server, 3rd Ed <https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/apache-solr-enterprise-search-server-third-edition-raw> This e-mail and all contents, including attachments, is considered to be Company Confidential unless explicitly stated otherwise, regardless of whether attachments are marked as such.
