see StandardHighlighter here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Standard+Highlighter
Best, Erick On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 1:22 AM, Avi Steiner <astei...@varonis.com> wrote: > As far as I remember it didn't work. I used DefaultSolrHighlighter (because > the improved ones as PostingsSolrHighlighter requires indexing for sure) and > it used only indexed fields, but I'll retry. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerick...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:34 AM > To: solr-user <solr-user@lucene.apache.org> > Subject: Re: limit stored field size > > I'm not getting through. You do _not_ need to have a field indexed to > highlight. > They can (optionally) just be stored and re-analyzed just before being > returned. > > Especially with 50 character fields to be highlighted, the re-analysis won't > be very expensive. > > So it's perfectly reasonable to index but not store your searchable field and > store but not index your highlight part. > > Best, > Erick > > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:29 PM, asteiner <astei...@varonis.com> wrote: >> Thanks Erick. >> As far as I understand (during highlight debugging) a field must have >> indexed=true in order to be highlighted, so the truncated field should >> be indexed and stored. I would like to avoid the double indexed fields. >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/limit-stored-field-size-tp4284356p4 >> 284427.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at >> Nabble.com. > ________________________________ > This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and > privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, > copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others > is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact > the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of > this email and any attachments thereto.
