lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Shawn Heisey (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (SOLR-6003) JSON Update increment field with non-stored fields causes subtle problems
Date Thu, 24 Apr 2014 23:55:15 GMT


Shawn Heisey commented on SOLR-6003:

I have not looked at the code that generates the schema object from schema.xml, so I'm not
familiar with the actual object names or the methods.  Here's an extreme simplification of
my idea with simple variable names and objects/methods that probably do not correspond to
what's really in the schema object.  When the schema object is created:

Set<String> atomicUpdateRequiredFields = new HashSet<>();
foreach (Field f : fields) {
  if (! f.isCopyfieldDestination()) {
    if (! f.isStored()) {

When an Atomic Update request arrives, the update processor will retrieve atomicUpdateRequiredFields
(or whatever we call it).  If the update does not include all of those fields (or actions
on any of those fields attempt to use add/inc/remove instead of set/removeAll), we log a warning.
 The warning will include the uniqueKey value and all field names that were bad/missing.

When the user goes to their log to find out why they are missing data, they'll have log entries
that clearly explain the problem.  A configuration option could be created that will fail
such updates instead of logging a warning.

> JSON Update increment field with non-stored fields causes subtle problems
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: SOLR-6003
>                 URL:
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: update
>    Affects Versions: 4.7.1
>            Reporter: Kingston Duffie
> In our application we have large multi-field documents.  We occasionally need to increment
one of the numeric fields or add a value to a multi-value text field.  This appears to work
correctly using JSON update.  But later we discovered that documents were disappearing from
search results and eventually found the documentation that indicates that to use field modification
you must store all fields of the document.
> Perhaps you will argue that you need to impose this restriction -- which I would hope
could be overcome because of the cost of us having to store all fields.  But in any case,
it would be better for others if you could return an error if someone tries to update a field
on documents with non-stored fields.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message