I would say, if index size is not an issue, there's merit in indexing a field twice, once with these turned off, once with them turned on. That gives yuo the chance to choose at query time without major re-engineering efforts for your indexer code.
Upayavira On Tue, Oct 15, 2013, at 07:08 AM, Karan jindal wrote: > thanks shawn for quick insight about it. > > I will look more into this.. and will share my experience > > Thanks, > Karan Jindal > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Shawn Heisey <s...@elyograg.org> wrote: > > > On 10/14/2013 3:05 AM, Karan jindal wrote: > > > >> Is there standard way of checking to know whether switching off fieldNorm > >> helps or not? > >> > > > > If you will *NEVER* care about how the length of a field affects your > > relevancy score, you can omit norms for that field. If you don't care at > > *all* about how matches in that field affect relevancy, then you could also > > omit term frequencies and positions. These settings are designed to leave > > standard information out of the index when they are not required, which > > makes the index smaller. > > > > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/**SchemaXml#Common_field_options<http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SchemaXml#Common_field_options> > > > > Be careful when you decide to leave information out of your > > index.Requirements have a way of changing suddenly, and if you're not in a > > position where you can reindex quickly, changing your schema for new > > requirements is painful, because most schema changes require a reindex. > > > > Thanks, > > Shawn > > > >
