This simply cannot be true unless the destination copyField is indexed=false, docValues=false stored=false. I.e. “some circumstances” means there’s really no use in using the copyField in the first place. I suppose that if you don’t store any term vectors, no position information nothing except, say, the terms then maybe you’ll have extremely minimal size. But even in that case, I’d use the original field in an “fq” clause which doesn’t use any scoring in place of using the copyField.
Each field is stored in a separate part of the relevant files (.tim, .pos, etc). Term frequencies are kept on a _per field_ basis for instance. So this pretty much has to be small sample size or other measurement error. Best, Erick > On Dec 26, 2019, at 9:27 AM, Nicolas Paris <nicolas.pa...@riseup.net> wrote: > > Anyway, that´s good news copy field does not increase indexe size in > some circumstance: > - the copied fields and the target field share the same datatype > - the target field is not stored > > this is tested on text fields > > > On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 11:42:23AM +0100, Nicolas Paris wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 05:30:03AM -0500, Dave wrote: >>> #2 you initially said you were talking about 1k documents. >> >> Hi Dave. Again, sorry for the confusion. This is 1k fields >> (general_text), over 50M large documents copied into one _text_ field. >> 4 shards, 40GB per shard in both case, with/without the _text_ field >> >>> >>>> 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 >>> >> >> -- >> nicolas >> > > -- > nicolas
