#1 merry Xmas thing #2 you initially said you were talking about 1k documents. That will not be a large enough sample size to see the index size differences with this new field, in any case the index size should never really matter. But if you go to a few million you will notice the size has increased by a good amount. Other things come into play like if the index was wiped clean with a commit before indexing or if it was reindexed with out, or if we are taking about documents that have a lot of similar words between them, so many other scenarios can increase or decrease the index. But no matter what if you have a copy field, the text is going somewhere
> On Dec 25, 2019, at 3:07 AM, Nicolas Paris <nicolas.pa...@riseup.net> wrote: > > >> >> If you are redoing the indexing after changing the schema and >> reloading/restarting, then you can ignore me. > > I am sorry to say that I have to ignore you. Indeed, my tests include > recreating the collection from scratch - with and without the copy > fields. > In both cases the index size is the same ! (while the _text_ field is > working correctly) > >> On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 05:32:09PM -0700, Shawn Heisey wrote: >>> On 12/24/2019 5:11 PM, Nicolas Paris wrote: >>> Do you mean "copy fields" is only an action of changing the schema ? >>> I was thinking it was adding a new field and eventually a new index to >>> the collection >> >> The copy that copyField does happens at index time. Reindexing is required >> after changing the schema, or nothing happens. >> >> If you are redoing the indexing after changing the schema and >> reloading/restarting, then you can ignore me. >> >> Thanks, >> Shawn >> > > -- > nicolas
