I think you mean https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-7290?
Erick On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Mike Murphy <mmurphy3...@gmail.com> wrote: > That's it! > I hand edited the file that says you are not supposed to edit it and > removed that copyField. > Indexing performance is now back to expected levels. > > I created an issue for this, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-7284 > > --Mike > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Yonik Seeley <ysee...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I took a quick look at the stock schemaless configs... unfortunately >> they contain a performance trap. >> There's a copyField by default that copies *all* fields to a catch-all >> field called "_text". >> >> IMO, that's not a great default. Double the index size (well, the >> "index" portion of it at least... not stored fields), and slower >> indexing performance. >> >> The other unfortunate thing is the name. No where else in solr (that >> I know of) do we have a single underscore field name. _text looks >> more like a dynamicField pattern. Our other fields with underscores >> look like _version_ and _root_. If we're going to start a new naming >> convention (or expand the naming conventions) we need to have some >> consistency and logic behind it. >> >> -Yonik >> >> On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Mike Murphy <mmurphy3...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I start up solr schemaless and index a bunch of data, and it takes a >>> lot longer to finish indexing. >>> No configuration changes, just straight schemaless. >>> >>> --Mike >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Erick Erickson >>> <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Please review: http://wiki.apache.org/solr/UsingMailingLists >>>> >>>> You haven't quantified the slowdown. Or given any details on how >>>> you're measuring the "slowdown". Or how you've configured your setups >>>> in 4.10 and 5.0. Or... Ad Hossman would say "details matter". >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Erick >>>> >>>> On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Mike Murphy <mmurphy3...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> I'm trying out schemaless in solr 5.0, but the indexing seems quite a >>>>> bit slower than it did in the past on 4.10. Any pointers? >>>>> >>>>> --Mike
