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, with/without the _text_ field > > > On Dec 25, 2019, at 3:07 AM, Nicolas Paris <nicolas.pa...@riseup.net> wrote: > > > > > >> > >> 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 ! (while the _text_ field is > > working correctly) > > > >> On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 05:32:09PM -0700, Shawn Heisey wrote: > >>> On 12/24/2019 5:11 PM, Nicolas Paris wrote: > >>> Do you mean "copy fields" is only an action of changing the schema ? > >>> I was thinking it was adding a new field and eventually a new index to > >>> the collection > >> > >> The copy that copyField does happens at index time. Reindexing is required > >> after changing the schema, or nothing happens. > >> > >> If you are redoing the indexing after changing the schema and > >> reloading/restarting, then you can ignore me. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Shawn > >> > > > > -- > > nicolas > -- nicolas
