Mailing-List: contact solr-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFLfoC+_w1fQhmJyjY8OaQMy65B7VtOyn=Py0_85jZE0fhbepQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ec48a0bd-2bbd-485e-587e-d8f30e66fa44@elyograg.org> <CAFLfoC+X=XHb9mZPvBioq77vb3BTYz2DNe2yaZX6b+qqoH5vPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANsFX04aMmYWT70WjOF8XYjz2xMTPfjjGtpGuzUWVdBQF63NVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFLfoC+_=6w+O1qVMDY3JziFL77nOGzLxdVKZAxtFEm2_PbFWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANsFX051Gn_B8QZiBQxXp=o+QecRQ6UGDRZmf5E2n=m0pDg7gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN4YXvcYz6mWdhQc8gWZ7YrRiPWraDMKCULqDjiVoKPtroJYbg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHPRk5GmHvqkDAYTYvAAKvZ2_0dPgbr0a29yyH6nS1Kcj+5y-Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHPRk5GmHvqkDAYTYvAAKvZ2_0dPgbr0a29yyH6nS1Kcj+5y-Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Ulicny <culicny@iq.media>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 00:04:48 +0000
Message-ID: <CAFLfoCLqHH_H93kcDyZwxrZ7=rj7CYhGqBATfG5-tXFeDjkiZA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Atomic Updates
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114fd2ce2ff3bf054e1ab552
archived-at: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 00:05:08 -0000

--001a114fd2ce2ff3bf054e1ab552
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

That's probably it then. None of the atomic updates that I've tried have
been on TextFields. I'll give the TextField atomic update to verify that it
will clear the other field.

Has this functionality been consistent since atomic updates were
introduced, or is this a side effect of some other change? It'd be very
convenient for us to use this functionality as it currently works, but if
it's something that prevents us from upgrading versions in the future, we
should probably avoid expecting it to work.

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 7:36 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Hmm, interesting. I can imagine that as long as you're updating
> > docValues fields, the other_text field would be there. But the instant
> > you updated a non-docValues field (text_field in your example) the
> > other_text field would disappear
>
> I can confirm this. When in-place updates to DV fields are done, the rest
> of the fields remain as they were.
>
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hmm, interesting. I can imagine that as long as you're updating
> > docValues fields, the other_text field would be there. But the instant
> > you updated a non-docValues field (text_field in your example) the
> > other_text field would disappear.
> >
> > I DO NOT KNOW this for a fact, but I'm asking people who do.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Dorian Hoxha <dorian.hoxha@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > There are In Place Updates, but according to docs they stll shouldn't
> > work
> > > in your case:
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/
> > Updating+Parts+of+Documents
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Chris Ulicny <culicny@iq.media>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> That's the thing I'm curious about though. As I mentioned in the first
> > >> post, I've already tried a few tests, and the value seems to still be
> > >> present after an atomic update.
> > >>
> > >> I haven't exhausted all possible atomic updates, but 'set' and 'add'
> > seem
> > >> to preserve the non-stored text field.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Chris
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:07 PM Dorian Hoxha <dorian.hoxha@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > You'll lose the data in that field. Try doing a commit and it should
> > >> > happen.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Chris Ulicny <culicny@iq.media>
> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Thanks Shawn, I didn't realize docValues were enabled by default
> > now.
> > >> > > That's very convenient and probably makes a lot of the schemas
> we've
> > >> been
> > >> > > making excessively verbose.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > This is on 6.3.0. Do you know what the first version was that they
> > >> added
> > >> > > the docValues by default for non-Text field?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > However, that shouldn't apply to this since I'm concerned with a
> > >> > non-stored
> > >> > > TextField without docValues enabled.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Best,
> > >> > > Chris
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 3:36 PM Shawn Heisey <apache@elyograg.org
> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > On 4/25/2017 1:40 PM, Chris Ulicny wrote:
> > >> > > > > Hello all,
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Suppose I have the following fields in a document and populate
> > all
> > >> 4
> > >> > > > fields
> > >> > > > > for every document.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > id: uniqueKey, indexed and stored
> > >> > > > > integer_field: indexed and stored
> > >> > > > > text_field: indexed and stored
> > >> > > > > othertext_field: indexed but not stored
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > No default values, multivalues, docvalues, copyfields, or any
> > other
> > >> > > > > properties set.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > You didn't indicate the Solr version.  In recent Solr versions,
> > most
> > >> > > > field classes other than TextField have docValues enabled by
> > default,
> > >> > > > even if the config is not mentioned on the field, and in those
> > >> > versions,
> > >> > > > docValues will take the place of stored if stored is false.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Thanks,
> > >> > > > Shawn
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
>

--001a114fd2ce2ff3bf054e1ab552--