Mailing List Archive: [New Feature Discussion] Expanded Fields when expand=true

Hey,
This is preliminary discussion thread, for new feature of expanded fields. Here is the feature description:
As of now we have ‘fl’ field which is used for writing the field value whenever we pass expand=true, which is same as document results. If we can have query param, something like ‘expand.field’ (we already have ‘expand.fl’ param). This won’t be a mandatory parameter, in case ‘expand.field’ parameter is missing then ‘fl’ will be considered. As of now we are fetching unnecessary fields because of that in expanded results, with this we can reduce the n/w payload size drastically.

Let me know wdyt about this. With necessary feedback I can take this up for development.

SAYAN DAS
Dev | Search Team at BliBli.com

PT. Global Digital Niaga | Blibli.com
Ph. +91 9176046531

AIUI, you are basically proposing a *new* "expand.fl" that would work for
the ExpandComponent similarly to how similar parameters work for the
SubQueryTransformer and ChildDocTransformer. Makes sense to me.

FWIW I think ExpandComponent's "expand.field" should be replaced with a
Solr DocTransformer feature. ExpandComponent probably pre-dated the
DocTransformer abstraction. Solr response information associated with a
document are best served via DocTransformer instead of their own section.
Even "explain" output is this way. Highlighting is needed next.

~ David Smiley
Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley

On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:16 AM Sayan Das <sayan.das@gdn-commerce.com>
wrote:

> Hey,
> This is preliminary discussion thread, for new feature of expanded fields.
> Here is the feature description:
> As of now we have ‘fl’ field which is used for writing the field value
> whenever we pass expand=true, which is same as document results. If we can
> have query param, something like ‘expand.field’ (we already have
> ‘expand.fl’ param). This won’t be a mandatory parameter, in case
> ‘expand.field’ parameter is missing then ‘fl’ will be considered. As of now
> we are fetching unnecessary fields because of that in expanded results,
> with this we can reduce the n/w payload size drastically.
>
> Let me know wdyt about this. With necessary feedback I can take this up
> for development.
>
>
> *SAYAN DAS *
> *Dev | **Search Team at BliBli.com*
>
> *PT. Global Digital Niaga | Blibli.com <http://Blibli.com>*
> Ph. +91 9176046531
>