> Strictly speaking there is some insignificant distinctions in performance > related to how a field name is resolved -- Grant alluded to this > earlier in this thread -- but it only comes into play when you actually > refer to that field by name and Solr has to "look them up" in the > metadata. So for example if your request refered to 100 differnet field > names in the q, fq, and facet.field params there would be a small overhead > for any of those 100 fields that existed because of <dynamicField/> > declarations, that would not exist for any of those fields that were > declared using <field/> -- but there would be no added overhead to htat > query if there were 9999999 other fields that existed in your index > because of that same <dynamicField/> declaration. > > But frankly: we're getting talking about seriously ridiculous > "pico-optimizing" at this point ... if you find yourselv with performance > concerns there are probaly 500 other things worth worrying about before > this should ever cross your mind. >
Thanks for the follow up. I've converted our schema to required fields only with every other field being a dynamic field. The only negative that I've found so far is that you lose the copyField capability, so it makes my ingest a little bigger, since I have to manually copy the values myself. -- A. Steven Anderson Independent Consultant st...@asanderson.com
