In terms of the impact upon the index, there is no difference, they do
the same thing - mark the previous doc deleted and insert another. As
jack says, maybe atomic updates are easier for you from an application
perspective.
Note Solr/lucene are heavily optimised towards reading - writing is a
rel
: update some fields vs replace the whole document
Then what's the difference between adding a new document vs.
replacing/overwriting a document?
Ming-
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Upayavira wrote:
With an atomic update, you need to retrieve the stored fields in order
to build up the
Then what's the difference between adding a new document vs.
replacing/overwriting a document?
Ming-
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Upayavira wrote:
> With an atomic update, you need to retrieve the stored fields in order
> to build up the full document to insert back.
>
> In either case, you
With an atomic update, you need to retrieve the stored fields in order
to build up the full document to insert back.
In either case, you'll have to locate the previous version and mark it
deleted before you can insert the new version.
I bet that the amount of time spent retrieving stored fields i
Generally speaking, which has better performance for Solr?
1. updating some fields or adding new fields into a document.
or
2. replacing the whole document.
As I understand, update fields need to search for the corresponding doc
first, and then replace field values. While replacing the whole doc
