Why get rid of idf? Most often, idf is a big help in relevance. I’ve used different weights for different parts of the document, like weighting the title 8X the body.
I’ve used different weights for different analysis chains. If we have three fields, one lowercased, one stemmed, and one a phonetic representation, then you can weight the lower case higher than the stemmed field, and stemmed higher than phonetic. wunder Walter Underwood wun...@wunderwood.org http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog) > On Oct 12, 2015, at 6:12 AM, Ahmet Arslan <iori...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote: > > Hi, > > Catch-all field: No need to worry about how to aggregate scores coming from > different fields. > But you cannot utilize different analysers for different fields. > > Multiple-fields: You can play with edismax's parameters on-the-fly, without > having to re-index. > It is flexible that you can include/exclude fields from search. > > Ahmet > > > > On Monday, October 12, 2015 3:39 PM, elisabeth benoit > <elisaelisael...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > We're using solr 4.10 and storing all data in a catchall field. It seems to > me that one good reason for using a catchall field is when using scoring > with idf (with idf, a word might not have same score in all fields). We got > rid of idf and are now considering using multiple fields. I remember > reading somewhere that using a catchall field might speed up searching > time. I was wondering if some of you have any opinion (or experience) > related to this subject. > > Best regards, > Elisabeth
