bq: so what is the point of having atomic updates if i need to update everything?
_nobody_ claims this is ideal, it does solve a certain use-case. We'd all like like true partial-updates that didn't require stored fields. The use-case here is that you don't have access to the system-of-record so you don't have a choice. See the JIRA about "stacked segments" for update without storing fields work. Best, Erick On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Shawn Heisey <elyog...@elyograg.org> wrote: > On 10/9/2013 8:39 PM, deniz wrote: >> Billnbell wrote >>> You have to update the whole record including all fields... >> >> so what is the point of having atomic updates if i need to update >> everything? > > If you have any regular fields that are not stored, atomic updates will > not work -- unstored field data will be lost. If you have copyField > destination fields that *are* stored, atomic updates will not work as > expected with those fields. The wiki spells out the requirements: > > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/Atomic_Updates#Caveats_and_Limitations > > An atomic update is just a shortcut for "read all existing fields from > the original document, apply the atomic updates, and re-insert the > document, overwriting the original." > > Thanks, > Shawn >
