On 5 November 2012 22:26, geeky2 <gee...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Gora, > > currently our core does use mult-valued fields. however the exsiting > multi-valued fields in the schema are will only result in 3 - 10 values. > > we are thinking of using the text blob approach primarily because of the > large number of possible values in this field. > > if we were to use a multi-valued field, it is likely that the MV field would > have 200+ values and in some edge cases 400+ values. > > are you saying that the MV field approach to represent the data (given the > scale previously indicated) is the best design solution?
Yes. I do not have direct experience with so many values per multi-valued field, but as per people who know better 400-odd values should not be a problem. This is probably better than indexing, retrieving, and parsing a text blob. Regards, Gora
