That's really good and helpful info, thank you. Perfect. Best wishes,
Edd On Mon, 28 Sep 2020, 5:53 pm Shawn Heisey, <apa...@elyograg.org> wrote: > On 9/28/2020 8:56 AM, Edward Turner wrote: > > By removing the copyfields, we've found that our index sizes have reduced > > by ~40% in some cases, which is great! We're just curious now as to > exactly > > how this can be ... > > That's not surprising. > > > My question is, given the following two schemas, if we index some data to > > the "description" field, will the index for schema1 be twice as large as > > the index of schema2? (I guess this relates to how, internally, Solr > stores > > field + index data) > > > > Old way -- schema1: > > ======= > > <field name="description type="text_general" indexed="true" > > multiValued="false"/> > > <field name="default_field" type="text_general" indexed="true" > > multiValued="false" /> > > <copyField source="description" dest="default_field /> > > > > New way -- schema2: > > ======= > > <field name="description type="text_general" indexed="true" > > multiValued="false"/> > > If the only field in the indexed documents is "description", the index > built with schema2 will be half the size of the index built with > schema1. Both fields referenced by "copyField" are the same type and > have the same settings, so they would contain exactly the same data at > the Lucene level. > > Having the same type for a source and destination field is normally only > useful if multiple sources are copied to a destination, which requires > multiValued="true" on the destination -- NOT the case in your example. > > There is one other use case for a copyField -- using the same data > differently, with different type values. For example you might have one > type for faceting and one for searching. > > Thanks, > Shawn >
