What ID are you using? Are you possibly using the same ID field for both, so the second document you visit causes the first to be overwritten?
Upayavira On Wed, Oct 7, 2015, at 06:38 PM, Erick Erickson wrote: > This certainly should not be happening. I'd > take a careful look at what you actually send. > My _guess_ is that you're not sending the update > command you think you are.... > > As a test you could just curl (or use post.jar) to > send these types of commands up individually. > > Perhaps looking at the solr log would help too... > > Best, > Erick > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 6:32 AM, John Smith <solr-u...@remailme.net> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm bumping on the following problem with update XML messages. The idea > > is to record the number of clicks for a document: each time, a message > > is sent to .../update such as this one: > > > > <add> > > <doc> > > <field name="Id">abc</field> > > <field name="Clicks" update="set">1</field> > > <field name="Boost" update="set">1.05</field> > > </doc> > > </add> > > > > (Clicks is an int field; Boost is a float field, it's updated to reflect > > the change in popularity using a formula based on the number of clicks). > > > > At the moment in the dev environment, changes are committed immediately. > > > > > > When a document is updated, the changes are indeed reflected in the > > search results. If I click on the same document again, all goes well. > > But when I click on an other document, the latter gets updated as > > expected but the former is plainly deleted. It can no longer be found > > and the admin core Overview page counts 1 document less. If I click on a > > 3rd document, so goes the 2nd one. > > > > > > The schema is the default one amended to remove unneeded fields and add > > new ones, nothing fancy. All fields are stored="true" and there's no > > <copyField>. I've tried versions 5.2.1 & 5.3.1 in standalone mode, with > > the same outcome. It looks like a bug to me but I might have overlooked > > something? This is my first attempt at atomic updates. > > > > Thanks, > > John. > >
