Exactly. Although I’m a bit curious why your going a .1 version up, I always
wait until an x2, so I won’t be upgrading until 9.3
> On Dec 25, 2019, at 9:45 AM, Erick Erickson wrote:
>
> Should work. At any rate, just try it. Since all you’re doing is copying
> data, even if the new
Should work. At any rate, just try it. Since all you’re doing is copying data,
even if the new installation doesn’t work you still have the original.
> On Dec 25, 2019, at 1:35 AM, Ken Walker wrote:
>
> Hello Erick,
>
> Thanks for your reply!
>
> You mean that, we should follow below steps
On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 05:30:03AM -0500, Dave wrote:
> #2 you initially said you were talking about 1k documents.
Hi Dave. Again, sorry for the confusion. This is 1k fields
(general_text), over 50M large documents copied into one _text_ field.
4 shards, 40GB per shard in both case,
#1 merry Xmas thing
#2 you initially said you were talking about 1k documents. That will not be a
large enough sample size to see the index size differences with this new field,
in any case the index size should never really matter. But if you go to a few
million you will notice the size has
> If you are redoing the indexing after changing the schema and
> reloading/restarting, then you can ignore me.
I am sorry to say that I have to ignore you. Indeed, my tests include
recreating the collection from scratch - with and without the copy
fields.
In both cases the index size is the same
