Does it make sense to use nested documents here? Products could be nested in a supplier document perhaps.
Alternately, consider de-normalizing "til it hurts". A product doc might be able to contain supplier info. On April 27, 2017 8:50:59 AM EDT, Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org> wrote: >On 4/26/2017 11:57 PM, Derek Poh wrote: >> There are some common fields between them. >> At the source data end (database), the supplier info and product info >> are updated separately. In this regard, I should separate them? >> If it's In 1 single collection, when there are updatesto only the >> supplier info,the product info will be index again even though there >> is noupdates to them, Is my reasoning valid? >> >> >> On 4/27/2017 1:33 PM, Walter Underwood wrote: >>> Do they have the same fields or different fields? Are they updated >>> separately or together? >>> >>> If they have the same fields and are updated together, I’d put them >>> in the same collection. Otherwise, probably separate. > >Walter's statements are right on the money, you just might need a >little >more detail. > >There are are two critical details that decide whether you even CAN >combine different data in a single index: One is that all types of >records must use the same field (the uniqueKey field) to determine >uniqueness, and the value of this field must be unique across the >entire >dataset. The other is that there SHOULD be a field with a name like >"type" that your search client can use to differentiate the different >kinds of documents. This type field is not necessary, but it does make >things easier. > >Assuming you CAN combine documents, there is still the question of >whether you SHOULD. If the fields that you will commonly search are >the >same between the different kinds of documents, and if people want to be >able to do one search and get more than one of the document types you >are indexing, then it is something you should consider. If people will >only ever search one type of document, you should probably keep them in >separate indexes to keep things cleaner. > >Thanks, >Shawn -- Sorry for being brief. Alternate email is rickleir at yahoo dot com
