"indexed" means you can search it, "stored" means you can return the
value to the user or highlight it.
Both consum disk space.
A copyfield is not a kind of special field : it is a directive that
copies one field values to another field. They are many use cases for
using copy fields.
In the example, we use a specific field, text, as a default field where
use will perform the searches. That is why we copy all fields that we
want to search in that specific field "text"(note that there are other
way to search multiple fields : have a look to
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/ExtendedDisMax)
For exemple, the field "content"is copied to the "text" field (that is
indexed) for searching. As we will use the field text to perform our
search, we don't need to index the "content" field too, and we don't,
you save some disk space.
Regards,
Aurélien
Le 19/08/2014 13:05, Aman Tandon a écrit :
I have a question, does storing the data in copyfields save space?
With Regards
Aman Tandon
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:02 PM, jmlucjav <jmluc...@gmail.com> wrote:
ok, I had not noticed text contains also the other metadata like keywords,
description etc, nevermind!
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:28 AM, jmlucjav <jmluc...@gmail.com> wrote:
In the sample schema.xml I can see this:
<!-- Main body of document extracted by SolrCell.
NOTE: This field is not indexed by default, since it is also
copied to "text"
using copyField below. This is to save space. Use this field
for returning and
highlighting document content. Use the "text" field to search
the content. -->
<field name="content" type="text_general" indexed="false"
stored="true" multiValued="true"/>
I am wondering, how does having this split in two fields text/content
save
space?
