lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Toke Eskildsen ...@statsbiblioteket.dk>
Subject RE: What's the need for copyField> when you have "fq"
Date Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:47:58 GMT
Steven White [swhite4141@gmail.com] wrote:
> If I have 50 fields in a Solr doc and I index them without doing any
> <copyField> to a catch-all-field called "all_text".  During search I use
> "fq" to list all the 50 fields to search on.  Now how different is this
> from not using "fq" and searching against my catch-all-field of "all_text"
> using "q"?

One potential use it to have the catch-all-field perform severe normalization to match more
queries but rank those extra matches lower than a direct hit in a specific field. The same
effect can be accomplished by having differently analyzed versions of the same logical field:
Having a single catch-all is just easy to do.

Another reason can be performance: fq-matching against all fields is heavier than matching
against a few fields and the catch-all.

- Toke Eskildsen

Mime
View raw message