I think multiValue is copied multi values, index is bigger and query easy,
but performance may worse, but it depends on how to using.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-performance-multiValued-filed-vs-separate-fields-tp4136121p4137289.html
Sent from the
I'd go with 100 separate fields I think, it's a more "natural" mapping
and probably expresses the underlying structure better.
Besides, I'd expect the index to be smaller, you wouldn't be storing
the property name over and over and over...
Best,
Erick
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:12 AM, Pavel Belen
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:29 AM, danny teichthal wrote:
> I wonder about performance difference of 2 indexing options: 1- multivalued
> field 2- separate fields
>
> The case is as follows: Each document has 100 “properties”: prop1..prop100.
> The values are strings and there is no relation betwee
On 5/15/2014 8:29 AM, danny teichthal wrote:
> I wonder about performance difference of 2 indexing options: 1- multivalued
> field 2- separate fields
>
> The case is as follows: Each document has 100 “properties”: prop1..prop100.
> The values are strings and there is no relation between different
I wonder about performance difference of 2 indexing options: 1- multivalued
field 2- separate fields
The case is as follows: Each document has 100 “properties”: prop1..prop100.
The values are strings and there is no relation between different
properties. I would like to search by exact match on se
Hi,
I wonder about performance difference of 2 indexing options:
1- multivalued field
2- separate fields
The case is as follows:
Each document has 100 "properties": prop1..prop100.
The values are strings and there is no relation between different properties.
I would like to search by
