@Chris, According to doc-link-above, only INC,SET are in-place-updates. And only when they're not indexed/stored, while your 'integer-field' is. So still shenanigans in there somewhere (docs,your-code,your-test,solr-code).
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Chris Ulicny <culicny@iq.media> wrote: > 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 < > ichattopadhy...@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 <erickerick...@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.ho...@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.ho...@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 < > apa...@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 > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >
