Seems you are using the field guessing logic. It is helpful for quick experimentation, as any text field will have a string equivalent "mytext_str" which can be immediately used for sorting or faceting, and thus requires *_str to be defined. It is not a recommended feature to use in production, so disabling it is adviced. You can instead look at the Schema Designer feature of the Admin UI to build up your schema.
Note that the guessing logic mutates your schema dynamicaly, so it is not enough to remove the chain. Your schema will still remain what it was. See https://solr.apache.org/guide/solr/latest/indexing-guide/schemaless-mode.html for more info. I'm not sure what you mean by pseudo field and type. Jan > 1. mai 2025 kl. 19:11 skrev Dmitri Maziuk <dmitri.maz...@gmail.com>: > > Hi all, > > this is more o a dev question, but posting here to a wider audience. > > Due to overzealous trimming on my part, I have a schema without `dynamicField > name="*_str"` in it. Inserting a child document > ``` > { > "id" : "P1", > "C1": { > "add" : { > "id" : "P1!C1", > ... > } > } > } > ``` > throws a `o.a.s.h.RequestHandlerBase org.apache.solr.common.SolrException: > copyField dest :'C1_str' is not an explicit field and doesn't match a > dynamicField` because > - "C1" is a "pseudo-field" not defined in teh schema, and > - the "add-schema-fields" UpdateProcessor by default tries to copy 256 chars > of string and "text_general" fields into "*_str". > > So the question: why? > > It's highly unlikely that the first 256 chars of a child document are in any > way useful. > > Should it be noted in TFM that if you use the default(-ish) config and child > documents, this copyfield'ing will happen? > > Are there any larger implications for turning off > "add-unknown-fields-to-the-schema" chain? -- we never run "schemaless" as all > that does is create an elastic mess. > > As best I can tell, pseudo-fields do not have a type, so I can't define them > in the schema and bypass that update chain. Is it a bug that they are treated > as string by the update processor? > > (This is Solr-8.11 BTW, do pseudo-fields have a type in 9.x?) > > Thoughts? > > Dima
