[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-12368?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16882226#comment-16882226
 ] 

Hoss Man commented on SOLR-12368:
---------------------------------

Hey [~munendrasn] - patch functionality looks good to me, but i'm confused by 
your last comment...

bq. As part of this issue, I will commit only solr changes and raise lucene 
issue for deprecating and removing IndexWriter#getFieldNames

...but in your latest patch, IndexWriter.getFieldNames (and the underlying 
FieldInfos method) are still being removed ... shouldn't those be moved to a 
new (linked) issue/patch so that the commit for _this_ issue can be trivially 
backported?


> in-place DV updates should no longer have to jump through hoops if field does 
> not yet exist
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-12368
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-12368
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Hoss Man
>            Priority: Major
>         Attachments: SOLR-12368.patch, SOLR-12368.patch, SOLR-12368.patch
>
>
> When SOLR-5944 first added "in-place" DocValue updates to Solr, one of the 
> edge cases thta had to be dealt with was the limitation imposed by 
> IndexWriter that docValues could only be updated if they already existed - if 
> a shard did not yet have a document w/a value in the field where the update 
> was attempted, we would get an error.
> LUCENE-8316 seems to have removed this error, which i believe means we can 
> simplify & speed up some of the checks in Solr, and support this situation as 
> well, rather then falling back on full "read stored fields & reindex" atomic 
> update



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to