Re: SOLRJ Atomic updates of String field

I understood the query now. Atomic Update and Optimistic Concurrency are independent in Solr version > 5. Not sure about version 4.2, if they are combined in this version a _version_ field is needed to pass in every update. The atomic/partial update will succeed if version in the request and indexe

Re: SOLRJ Atomic updates of String field

Hi Bbarani, Partial update solrJ example can be found in : http://find.searchhub.org/document/5b1187abfcfad33f Ahmet On Tuesday, November 11, 2014 8:51 PM, bbarani wrote: I am using the below code to do partial update (in SOLR 4.2) partialUpdate = new HashMap(); partialUpdate.put("set",Obje

Re: SOLRJ Atomic updates of String field

Sorry didn't get what you are trying to achieve and the issue. On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:20 AM, bbarani wrote: > I am using the below code to do partial update (in SOLR 4.2) > > partialUpdate = new HashMap(); > partialUpdate.put("set",Object); > doc.setField(description, partialUpdate); > serve

Re: SolrJ | Atomic Updates | How works exactly?

ng well on solr 4.0? or better to wait until solr >> 4.1?! >> >> >> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- >> Von: ysee...@gmail.com [mailto:ysee...@gmail.com] Im Auftrag von Yonik >> Seeley >> Gesendet: Sonntag, 13. Januar 2013 20.24 >> An: solr-user@luce

Re: SolrJ | Atomic Updates | How works exactly?

icht- > Von: ysee...@gmail.com [mailto:ysee...@gmail.com] Im Auftrag von Yonik > Seeley > Gesendet: Sonntag, 13. Januar 2013 20.24 > An: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Betreff: Re: SolrJ | Atomic Updates | How works exactly? > > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Uwe Clement > wr

Re: SolrJ | Atomic Updates | How works exactly?

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Uwe Clement wrote: > What is the best the most performant way to update a large document? That *is* the best way to update a large document that we currently have. Although it re-indexes under the covers, it ensures that it's atomic, and it's faster because it doe

Re: SolrJ | Atomic Updates | How works exactly?

Atomic updates work by storing (stored="true") all the fields (note, you don't have to set stored="true" for the destinations of copyField). Anyway, when you use the atomic update syntax under the covers Solr reads all the stored fields out, re-assembles the document and re-indexes it. So your inde

Re: SolrJ: atomic updates.

Uhm, after setting both Response and Request Writers it worked OK with * HttpSolrServer*. I´ve tried to find a way to set BinaryResponseParser and BinaryRequestWriter with *CloudServer *(or even via *LbHttpSolrServer*) but I found nothing. Suggestions? :-/ - Luis Cappa. 2012/11/15 Sami Siren

Re: SolrJ: atomic updates.

Try setting Request writer to binary like this: server.setParser(new BinaryResponseParser()); server.setRequestWriter(new BinaryRequestWriter()); Or then instead of string array use ArrayList() that contains your strings as the value for the map On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Luis

Re: SolrJ: atomic updates.

Hi, Sami. Doing some tests I´ve used the same code as you and did a quick execution: *HttpSolrServer server = new HttpSolrServer(" http://localhost:8080/solrserver/core1 ");* * * * try {* * * * HashMap editTags = new HashMap();* * editTags.put("

Re: SolrJ: atomic updates.

I´ll have a look to Solr source code and try to fix the bug. If I succeed I´ll update JIRA issue with it, :-) 2012/11/15 Sami Siren > Actually it seems that xml/binary request writers only behave differently > when using array[] as the value. if I use ArrayList it also works with the > xml form

Re: SolrJ: atomic updates.

Actually it seems that xml/binary request writers only behave differently when using array[] as the value. if I use ArrayList it also works with the xml format (4.1 branch). Still it's annoying that the two request writers behave differently so I guess it's worth adding the jira anyway. The Affect

Re: SolrJ: atomic updates.

Ok, done: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-4080 Regards, - Luis Cappa. 2012/11/15 Luis Cappa Banda > Hello, Sami. > > It will be the first issue that I open so, should I create it under Solr > 4.0 version or in Solr 4.1.0 one? > > Thanks, > > - Luis Cappa. > > > 2012/11/15 Sami Sir

Re: SolrJ: atomic updates.

Hello, Sami. It will be the first issue that I open so, should I create it under Solr 4.0 version or in Solr 4.1.0 one? Thanks, - Luis Cappa. 2012/11/15 Sami Siren > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Luis Cappa Banda >wrote: > > > Thread update: > > > > When I use a simple: > > > > *Map oper

Re: SolrJ: atomic updates.

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Luis Cappa Banda wrote: > Thread update: > > When I use a simple: > > *Map operation = new HashMap();* > > > Instead of: > > *Map> operation = new HashMap List>();* > > > The result looks better, but it´s still wrong: > > fieldName: [ > "[Value1, Value2]" > ], > >

Re: SolrJ: atomic updates.

Thread update: When I use a simple: *Map operation = new HashMap();* Instead of: *Map> operation = new HashMap>();* The result looks better, but it´s still wrong: fieldName: [ "[Value1, Value2]" ], However, List value is received as a simple String "[Value1, Value2]". In other words, Sol