Highlighting Unindexed Fields

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Highlighting Unindexed Fields

Chris Harris-2
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FieldOptionsByUseCase says that a field
needs to be both stored and indexed for highlighting to work. Unless
I'm very confused, though, I just tested and highlighting worked fine
(on trunk) for a stored, *non-indexed* field. So is this info perhaps
out of date?

Assuming it's correct that indexing the field is not required for
highlighting, there isn't any highlighting performance benefit from
indexing the field, is there? I guess if you have indexed and
termVectors and termPositions then you'll see a highlighting speedup,
but not from indexed alone.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Highlighting Unindexed Fields

Mike Klaas

On 3-Sep-08, at 1:29 PM, Chris Harris wrote:

> http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FieldOptionsByUseCase says that a field
> needs to be both stored and indexed for highlighting to work. Unless
> I'm very confused, though, I just tested and highlighting worked fine
> (on trunk) for a stored, *non-indexed* field. So is this info perhaps
> out of date?

Good point.  An analyzer/token filter chain is required to be defined,  
but actually indexing isn't strictly necessary.

> Assuming it's correct that indexing the field is not required for
> highlighting, there isn't any highlighting performance benefit from
> indexing the field, is there? I guess if you have indexed and
> termVectors and termPositions then you'll see a highlighting speedup,
> but not from indexed alone.

True.

-Mike