lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steven White <>
Subject What's the need for copyField> when you have "fq"
Date Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:36:04 GMT
Hi folks,

I'm new to Solr and I have a question about <copyField/>, "q" and "fq".

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"?

It seems to me that using <copyField> is a wast of space, and it also seems
to me that using "fq" I have better control over which fields will be
searched against.  Also, using "fq" I'm assuming my search terms will be
analyzed using that field's analyzer, in effect giving me better control
score and result.

Have I got this right, or am I missing something?

The problem that I'm trying to solve is this: user-A can search on a set of
field which is different from user-B.  Given this, why should I bother to
use <copyField> because my search will *always* be against a set of fields.

Note: I maybe mixing up "fq" with "qf" or even "uf".  Is "uf" what I should
be using vs. "fq"?



  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message