[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3442?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13269509#comment-13269509
]
Jan Høydahl commented on SOLR-3442:
-----------------------------------
Sure, I've seen it successfully used too, and I use it myself now and then to
reduce the number of fields required in "qf".
For very small indexes without much need for tuning analysis or relevancy it
does not matter very much. But I'm arguing that copyField is the legacy way of
searching multiple fields in one go, while DisMax is the current
recommendation. So why stick to the legacy in the default example?
> Example schema switch to DisMax instead of CopyField
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-3442
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3442
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Schema and Analysis
> Reporter: Jan Høydahl
> Labels: dismax
>
> Spinoff from SOLR-3439:
> The use of copyField in todays example schema is an anti pattern since we
> indirectly teach people to duplicate most of their content, while most would
> be better off using DisMax, or at least a combination.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
