Thanks for your suggestion Jack. In fact we're doing geographic search (fields are country, state, county, town, hamlet, district....)
So it's difficult to split. Best regards, Elisabeth 2015-10-13 16:01 GMT+02:00 Jack Krupansky <jack.krupan...@gmail.com>: > Performing a sequence of queries can help too. For example, if users > commonly search for a product name, you could do an initial query on just > the product name field which should be much faster than searching the text > of all product descriptions, and highlighting would be less problematic. If > that initial query comes up empty, then you could move on to the next > highest most likely field, maybe product title (short one line > description), and query voluminous fields like detailed product > descriptions, specifications, and user comments/reviews only as a last > resort. > > -- Jack Krupansky > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 6:17 AM, elisabeth benoit < > elisaelisael...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > Thanks to you all for those informed advices. > > > > Thanks Trey for your very detailed point of view. This is now very clear > to > > me how a search on multiple fields can grow slower than a search on a > > catchall field. > > > > Our actual search model is problematic: we search on a catchall field, > but > > need to know which fields match, so we do highlighting on multi fields > (not > > indexed, but stored). To improve performance, we want to get rid of > > highlighting and use the solr explain output. To get the explain output > on > > those fields, we need to do a search on those fields. > > > > So I guess we have to test if removing highlighting and adding multi > fields > > search will improve performances or not. > > > > Best regards, > > Elisabeth > > > > > > > > 2015-10-12 17:55 GMT+02:00 Jack Krupansky <jack.krupan...@gmail.com>: > > > > > I think it may all depend on the nature of your application and how > much > > > commonality there is between fields. > > > > > > One interesting area is auto-suggest, where you can certainly suggest > > from > > > the union of all fields, you may want to give priority to suggestions > > from > > > preferred fields. For example, for actual product names or important > > > keywords rather than random words from the English language that happen > > to > > > occur in descriptions, all of which would occur in a catchall. > > > > > > -- Jack Krupansky > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 8:39 AM, 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 > > > > > > > > > >
