I think it would be easy to get confused about what was where, resulting in hard-to-track bugs because the config file wasn't what you were expecting. I also don't understand why you think this is desirable. There might be an infinitesimal savings in memory, due to not instantiating one analysis chain, but I'm not even sure about that.
The savings is so tiny that the increased risk of messing up seems far too high a price to pay. Best Erick On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Daniel Brügge <daniel.brue...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I am using a 'text_general' fieldType (class = solr.TextField) in my > schema. And I have a master/slave setup, > where I index on the master and read from the slaves. In the text_general > field I am using 2 analyzers. One for > indexing and one for querying with stopword-filters. > > What I am thinking is if it would make sense to have a different schema on > the master than on the slave? So just the > index-analyzer on the master's schema and the query-analyzer on the slave's > schema? > > > <fieldType name="text_general" class="solr.TextField" > positionIncrementGap="100"> > <analyzer type="index"> > <tokenizer class="solr.StandardTokenizerFactory"/> > <filter class="solr.StopFilterFactory" ignoreCase="true" > words="stopwords.txt, stopwords_en.txt" enablePositionIncrements="true" /> > <filter class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory"/> > </analyzer> > <analyzer type="query"> > <tokenizer class="solr.StandardTokenizerFactory"/> > <filter class="solr.StopFilterFactory" ignoreCase="true" > words="stopwords.txt, stopwords_en.txt" enablePositionIncrements="true" /> > <filter class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory"/> > </analyzer> > </fieldType> > > What do you think? > > Thanks & best regards > > Daniel
