lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Robinson <mark123lea...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Atomic updates and "stored"
Date Tue, 24 May 2016 12:06:56 GMT
Thanks Eric!

Best,
Mark

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Yes, currently when using Atomic updates _all_ fields
> have to be stored, except the _destinations_ of copyField
> directives.
>
> Yes, it will make your index bigger. The affects on speed are
> probably minimal though. The stored data is in your *.fdt and
> *.fdx segments files and are not referenced only to pull
> the top N docs back, they're not referenced for _search_ at all.
>
> Coming Real Soon will be updateable DocValues, which may
> be what you really need.
>
> Best,
> Erick
>
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Mark Robinson <mark123learns@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have some 150 fields in my schema out of which about 100 are dynamic
> > fields which I am not storing (stored="false").
> > In case I need to do an atomic update to one or two fields which belong
> to
> > the stored list of fields, do I need to change my dynamic fields (100 or
> so
> > now not "stored") to stored="true"?
> >
> > If so wouldn't it considerably increase index size and affect performance
> > in the negative?
> >
> > Is there any way currently to do partial/ atomic updates to one or two
> > fields (which I will make stored="true") without having to make my now
> > stored="false" fields to stored="true" just
> > to accommodate atomic updates.
> >
> > Could some one pls give your suggestions.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Mark.
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message