od practice.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Shared-Stored-Field-tp4130351p4130589.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
ime. This is your
> suggestions correct?
>
> So each document has on average 8 of these dynamic fields, while over the
> whole index we have unlimited of these fields. What would this mean for the
> performance?
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Shared-Stored-Field-tp4130351p4130411.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
, while over the
whole index we have unlimited of these fields. What would this mean for the
performance?
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Shared-Stored-Field-tp4130351p4130411.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
like 8). In that case we should add a
> boost field for each of the values in the document, in general we would get
> unlimited amount of dynamic fields in the index.
>
> But it is possible to select a different boost field depending on the
> current filter query?
>
>
>
> -
ent boost field depending on the
current filter query?
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Shared-Stored-Field-tp4130351p4130399.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
different way to influence the relevance depending on the
> current search context?
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Shared-Stored-Field-tp4130351.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Shared-Stored-Field-tp4130351.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
