Thanks for the pointer. If I were to use (e)dismax, is it possible to identify the field(s) that matched the query (irrespective of whether the fields are stored or not)?
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Otis Gospodnetic < otis.gospodne...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I prefer individual fields because this allows one to apply different > query boosting and other nice (e)dismax things on different fields. With a > catch-all field you lose that. Yes, to have highlighting you need to store > fields you want to use for highlighting. > > See http://search-lucene.com/?q=solr+catchall+%22catch+all%22+catch-all > > > Otis > -- > Performance Monitoring - http://sematext.com/spm/index.html > Search Analytics - http://sematext.com/search-analytics/index.html > > > > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Rajarshi Guha <rajarshi.g...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hi, we're using Solr 3.6 to index and search a number of entities. The >> entities have a large number of fields and to enable full text search >> across all the fields I created a catch-all text field which is indexed. >> >> Initially I stored the field allowing me to highlight the matching >> fragment >> in the catch all field >> >> However, the field is generally very large and was leading to poor >> performance. As a result we no longer store it and thus cannot do >> highlighting. >> >> My questions are: >> >> 1) Is it preferable to have such a catch all field that collapses multiple >> fields? Or is it better to have fields separate and use the DisMax parser? >> >> 2) Must fields be stored to support highlighting? If so, what is good >> practice when one has many fields and would like to include them all when >> running a query *and* support highlighting? >> >> Any pointers would be appreciated >> >> -- >> Rajarshi Guha | http://blog.rguha.net >> NIH Center for Advancing Translational Science >> > > -- Rajarshi Guha | http://blog.rguha.net NIH Center for Advancing Translational Science
