[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6003?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13976789#comment-13976789
]
Erick Erickson commented on SOLR-6003:
--------------------------------------
see: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4258
bq: ..this situation can be checked once at the time when the schema is first
used to create the collection/core...
It's still a "false error".
How would you distinguish a situation where atomic updates were _not_ being
used from one that did? There's nothing in the schema itself that says "we're
going to use atomic updates", it's purely how the index is going to be _used_.
So there'd be nothing to check.
> JSON Update increment field with non-stored fields causes subtle problems
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-6003
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6003
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: update
> Affects Versions: 4.7.1
> Reporter: Kingston Duffie
>
> In our application we have large multi-field documents. We occasionally need
> to increment one of the numeric fields or add a value to a multi-value text
> field. This appears to work correctly using JSON update. But later we
> discovered that documents were disappearing from search results and
> eventually found the documentation that indicates that to use field
> modification you must store all fields of the document.
> Perhaps you will argue that you need to impose this restriction -- which I
> would hope could be overcome because of the cost of us having to store all
> fields. But in any case, it would be better for others if you could return
> an error if someone tries to update a field on documents with non-stored
> fields.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
