lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kingston Duffie (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (SOLR-6003) JSON Update increment field with non-stored fields causes subtle problems
Date Fri, 25 Apr 2014 00:27:15 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6003?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13980539#comment-13980539
] 

Kingston Duffie commented on SOLR-6003:
---------------------------------------

Based on remarks from Hoss Man and Erick, I'm starting to question whether
I even understand the current limitation correctly.  My understanding
(based on my own experience) is that atomic updates do not work *even if
the field being updated is stored*.  It appears that other non-stored
fields are lost as part of the update.

Is my understanding incorrect on this point?

If not, then I can't understand a realistic use case "in the wild" where
someone has a *non-stored field that is indexed* but doesn't care if it is
lost when they update some other field.  My claim is that if you have a
schema that has at least one indexed but unstored field, SOLR could safely
return an error for an update request.  No?

(I apologize in advance if I'm simply beating a dead horse here.)





> JSON Update increment field with non-stored fields causes subtle problems
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-6003
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6003
>             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
(v6.2#6252)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message