Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 11:56:58 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Ishan Chattopadhyaya (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.12706005.1396372276000.482696.1481284618461@Atlassian.JIRA>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.12706005.1396372276000@Atlassian.JIRA>
References: <JIRA.12706005.1396372276000@Atlassian.JIRA> <JIRA.12706005.1396372276525@arcas>
Subject: [jira] [Comment Edited] (SOLR-5944) Support updates of numeric
 DocValues
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
archived-at: Fri, 09 Dec 2016 11:57:00 -0000


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5944?page=3Dcom.atlassian.=
jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=3D15735=
138#comment-15735138 ]=20

Ishan Chattopadhyaya edited comment on SOLR-5944 at 12/9/16 11:56 AM:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

{quote}
Specifically: when I tried to remove it, I started seeing NPEs from SolrInd=
exSearcher.decorateDocValueFields in various tests:
{quote}

I tried to chase this bug down, and I think it has led me to some learnings=
 regarding the explicit vs dynamic fields (why dynamic fields are any diffe=
rent) issue.

{quote}
The reason for this is that when a document is created, DV fields for all e=
xplicit fields are created. But when a non-existent dynamic field is attemp=
ted to be updated subsequently, then the underlying DV field doesn't exist.
{quote}
I think I missed the fact that "DV fields for all explicit fields are creat=
ed" *only if* they have a default value set on them. Otherwise, explicit fi=
elds are no different from dynamic fields (in that they are not created unt=
il indexed for the first time).

So, therefore, I think we should be checking if the field exists or not, ir=
respective of explicit or dynamic. And if the field doesn't exist, we shoul=
d just delegate to a regular atomic update. Do you think it makes sense?


was (Author: ichattopadhyaya):
{quote}
Specifically: when I tried to remove it, I started seeing NPEs from SolrInd=
exSearcher.decorateDocValueFields in various tests:
{quote}

I tried to chase this bug down, and I think it has led me to some learnings=
 regarding the explicit vs dynamic fields (why dynamic fields are any diffe=
rent) issue.

{quote}
The reason for this is that when a document is created, DV fields for all e=
xplicit fields are created. But when a non-existent dynamic field is attemp=
ted to be updated subsequently, then the underlying DV field doesn't exist.
{quote}
I think I missed the fact that "DV fields for all explicit fields are creat=
ed" *only if* they have a default value set on them. Otherwise, explicit fi=
elds are no different from dynamic fields.

So, therefore, I think we should be checking if the field exists or not, ir=
respective of explicit or dynamic. And if the field doesn't exist, we shoul=
d just delegate to a regular atomic update. Do you think it makes sense?

> Support updates of numeric DocValues
> ------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-5944
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5944
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>            Reporter: Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>            Assignee: Shalin Shekhar Mangar
>         Attachments: DUP.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-59=
44.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patc=
h, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR=
-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.p=
atch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, S=
OLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-594=
4.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch=
, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-=
5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.pa=
tch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SO=
LR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944=
.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch,=
 SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5=
944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.patch, SOLR-5944.pat=
ch, SOLR-5944.patch, TestStressInPlaceUpdates.eb044ac71.beast-167-failure.s=
tdout.txt, TestStressInPlaceUpdates.eb044ac71.beast-587-failure.stdout.txt,=
 TestStressInPlaceUpdates.eb044ac71.failures.tar.gz, defensive-checks.log.g=
z, demo-why-dynamic-fields-cannot-be-inplace-updated-first-time.patch, hoss=
.62D328FA1DEA57FD.fail.txt, hoss.62D328FA1DEA57FD.fail2.txt, hoss.62D328FA1=
DEA57FD.fail3.txt, hoss.D768DD9443A98DC.fail.txt, hoss.D768DD9443A98DC.pass=
.txt
>
>
> LUCENE-5189 introduced support for updates to numeric docvalues. It would=
 be really nice to have Solr support this.


--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

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