I did always think that the global maxFieldLength was odd. In one project I have, 10,000 is fine except for 1 field that I would like to bump up to 100,000, and there isn't (as far as I know) a way to do that. Is there any real negative effect to swapping to maxFieldLength of 100,000 (with the caveat that the auto truncation won't be working!)?
The filter approach that you pointed out does make sense, the only worry I have is that it might make building analyzers more complex. One of the things I treasure about Solr is how many decisions it makes for you out of the box that are right so very often, and therefore how simple it is. If every user needs to think about maxFieldLength from day one, then that might make life more complex. Eric On Aug 24, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Robert Muir wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Eric Pugh <[email protected]> > wrote: > I created a patch file at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2086. I > went with the simplest approach since I didn't want to confuse things by > having extra filters being added to what the user created. However, either > approach would work! > > > > One idea here was that this maxFieldLength might be going away: see > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2295 for more information > (though i notice its still not listed as deprecated?). > > But for now its worth mentioning: The filter is more flexible, for example it > supports per-field configuration (and of course if you use the filter > instead, which you can do now, it will automatically work in analysis.jsp). > > > -- > Robert Muir > [email protected] ----------------------------------------------------- Eric Pugh | Principal | OpenSource Connections, LLC | 434.466.1467 | http://www.opensourceconnections.com Co-Author: Solr 1.4 Enterprise Search Server available from http://www.packtpub.com/solr-1-4-enterprise-search-server Free/Busy: http://tinyurl.com/eric-cal
