Hi, I was looking at Unicode Collation @ Wiki ( http://wiki.apache.org/solr/UnicodeCollation#Sorting_text_for_multiple_languages ) and it seems to suggest that: Use the Unicode "default" collator (to overcome/minimize increase in disk and indexing costs) over defining collated fields for each language and using copyField.
I didn't quite understand how using "default" collator would help overcome/minimize increase in disk and indexing costs over defining collated fields for each language. I thought the only difference between the two is having to define n-CollationField definitions (for each language) versus one "CollationField" for the default/ROOT locale in schema.xml. We will anyways have to use <copyField> to copy from analyzed field to collation field for each language. Would appreciate any insights into this. Thanks, Vasu
