Yonik, Thanks for the reply. Does that mean that if I were to edit the data then the field it was copied to will not be updated? I assume it does get deleted if I delete the record right? I understand how it can make searching simpler by copying fields to one but would that really make it faster? How?
Thanks, - Jake On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jake, copyField exists to decouple document values (on the update > size) from how they are indexed. > > From the example schema: > <!-- copyField commands copy one field to another at the time a document > is added to the index. It's used either to index the same > field differently, > or to add multiple fields to the same field for easier/faster > searching. > --> > > -Yonik > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Jake Conk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I was wondering if there was an added advantage in using <copyField /> >> to copy a string field to a text field? >> >> If the field is copied to a text field then why not just make the >> field a text field and eliminate copying its data? >> >> If you are going to use full text searching on that field which you >> cant do with string fields wouldn't it just make sense to keep it a >> text field since it has the same abilities as a string field and more? >> >> ... Or is the reason because string fields have better performance on >> matching exact strings than text fields? >> >> Thanks, >> >> - Jake >> >
