Re: storing large text fields in a database? (instead of inside index)

Hi and thanks, Emir! FieldType might indeed be another layer where the logic could live. On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 6:32 AM, Emir Arnautović < emir.arnauto...@sematext.com> wrote: > Hi, > Maybe you could use external field type as an example how to hook up > values from DB: https://lucene.apache.org

Re: storing large text fields in a database? (instead of inside index)

Hi, Maybe you could use external field type as an example how to hook up values from DB: https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/6_6/working-with-external-files-and-processes.html HTH, Emir -- Monitoring - L

Re: storing large text fields in a database? (instead of inside index)

Say there is a high load and I'd like to bring a new machine and let it replicate the index, if 100gb and more can be shaved, it will have a significant impact on how quickly the new searcher is ready and added to the cluster. Impact on the search speed is likely minimal. we are investigating the

Re: storing large text fields in a database? (instead of inside index)

Really depends on what you consider too large, and why the size is a big issue, since most replication will go at about 100mg/second give or take, and replicating a 300GB index is only an hour or two. What i do for this purpose is store my text in a separate index altogether, and call on that core