@Bill: Well, if you're creating 5,000 dynamic fields, whether from lots of matches to a few patterns or 5,000 patterns, you deserve what you get ;). Notice I was careful to say:
bq: Dynamic fields, once they are actually _in_ a document aren't any different than statically defined fields So while your search performance might suffer if you defined 5,000 dynamic fields, it would have suffered just the same if you'd used 5,000 static fields. There could conceivably be some indexing performance if you had, say, 5,000 dynamic field _patterns_, but I'm not very worried about that.... @Saumitra: That post has nothing to do with the fact that the fields are dynamic. The writer would have had the same problem with statically defined fields that had the same characteristics. See Hoss' explanation for sparse fields. Best, Erick On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Saumitra Srivastav <saumitra.srivast...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for reply Erick. I found this article: > http://e-mats.org/2011/01/solr-memory-usage-and-dynamic-fields/ > <http://e-mats.org/2011/01/solr-memory-usage-and-dynamic-fields/ > > > Just to confirm, the fieldCache doesn't store anything extra when we use > dynamic fields and do sorting query on that...right? > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Dynamic-Field-Performance-tp4158737p4158919.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
