I was mostly thinking of this specific case, but a more general solution makes sense. I can still argue that the case of field:* shouldn't ever try to highlight, but field:some* could, as you say, actually be useful....
Mostly I'm drawing attention to the difference between *:* and field:*. I think we should be consistent across both. Erick On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Jack Krupansky <[email protected]>wrote: > If you want to add a highlight option to suppress or limit highlighting > for wildcard terms (or any multi-term query, including fuzzy query), that > would seem reasonable, but I’d hate to lose the highlighting for useful > wildcards such as field1:invest*. > > Maybe if it was something like &hl.maxMultiTerms=15, that would provide > the best of both worlds – a reasonable default to prevent really slow > highlighting, but still give reasonable highlighting in reasonable cases, > and give you the ultimate control to completely turn off all multi-term > expansion highlighting if you so choose. > > -- Jack Krupansky > > *From:* Erick Erickson <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, February 28, 2013 11:28 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Highlighting is attempted with q=field:* > > Before I raise a JIRA, I thought I'd see what people think. Didn't see > anything like this on a quick search of the JIRAs: > > A query like > q=*:*&hl=on&..... > > doesn't attempt to highlight anything, as well it shouldn't. But > q=field1:*&hl=on&... > > does try to highlight. Of course it highlights every last term in the > highlight fields, and is also very slow. > > Re-forming the query as > q=*:*&fq=field1:*&hl=on&.... > gets around the problem and is a better query anyway, but it still seems > like trying to highlight in the above case is wrong. > > Worth a JIRA? > > Erick >
