> >> 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
>
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
7;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
&g
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 Me
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
: 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 wit
(13/04/24 7:09), Petersen, Robert wrote:
Hi guys,
What would happen if I changed a field definition on an existing field in an
existing index from stored to not stored? Would solr just party on ignoring
the fact that this field's data is stored in the current index? I noticed I am
unnecessa
