Good to know I missed something about solr replication. Thanks Jan
On 24 April 2013 17:42, Jan Høydahl <jan....@cominvent.com> wrote: > > I would create a new core as slave of the existing configuration without > > replicating the core schema and configuration. This way I can get the > > This won't work, as master/slave replication copies the index files as-is. > > You should re-index all your data. You don't need to take down the cluster > to do that, just re-index on top of what's there already, and your index > will become smaller and smaller as merging kicks out the old data :) > > -- > Jan Høydahl, search solution architect > Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com > Solr Training - www.solrtraining.com > > 24. apr. 2013 kl. 15:59 skrev Majirus FANSI <majirus....@gmail.com>: > > > I would create a new core as slave of the existing configuration without > > replicating the core schema and configuration. This way I can get the > > information from one index to the other while saving the space as fields > in > > the new schema are mainly not stored. After the replication I would swap > > the cores for the online core to point to the right index dir and conf. > > i.e. the one with less stored fields. > > > > Maj > > > > > > On 24 April 2013 01:48, Petersen, Robert > > <robert.peter...@mail.rakuten.com>wrote: > > > >> Hey I just want to verify one thing before I start doing this: function > >> queries only require fields to be indexed but don't require them to be > >> stored right? > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Petersen, Robert [mailto:robert.peter...@mail.rakuten.com] > >> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:39 PM > >> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > >> Subject: RE: Solr 3.6.1: changing a field from stored to not stored > >> > >> Good info, Thanks Hoss! I was going to add a more specific fl= > parameter > >> to my queries at the same time. Currently I am doing fl=*,score so that > >> will have to be changed. > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:hossman_luc...@fucit.org] > >> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:18 PM > >> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: Solr 3.6.1: changing a field from stored to not stored > >> > >> > >> : index? I noticed I am unnecessarily storing some fields in my index > and > >> : I'd like to stop storing them without having to 'reindex the world' > and > >> : let the changes just naturally percolate into my index as updates come > >> : in the normal course of things. Do you guys think I could get away > with > >> : this? > >> > >> Yes, you can easily get away with this type of change w/o re-indexing, > >> however you won't gain any immediate index size savings until each and > >> every existing doc has been reindexed and the old copies expunged from > the > >> index via segment merges. > >> > >> the one hicup thta can affect people when doing this is what happens if > >> you use something like "fl=*" (and likely "hl=*" as well) ... many > places > >> in Solr will try to "avoid failure" if a stored field is found in the > index > >> which isn't defined in the schema, and treat that stored value as a > string > >> (legacy behavior designed to make it easier for people to point Solr at > old > >> lucene indexes built w/o using Solr) ... so if these stored values are > not > >> strings, you might get some weird data in your response for these > documents. > >> > >> > >> -Hoss > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >
