You don't lose copyField capability with dynamic fields. You can copy
dynamic fields into a fixed field name like *_s => text or dynamic
fields into another dynamic field like *_s => *_t
Erik
On Jan 6, 2010, at 9:35 AM, A. Steven Anderson wrote:
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
