[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6003?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13981164#comment-13981164
]
Erick Erickson commented on SOLR-6003:
--------------------------------------
Kingston:
Sorry, I added to the confusion; Shawn's comment is spot on.
Just to make my position on this clear, I do NOT think this kind of "check if
schema doesn't support updates because not enough fields are stored and throw
an exception" is worth the effort. While I'm an advocate of "fail early and
fail often", this just doesn't seem like
1> it's going to be as easy as one might think. We've already seen the effort
expand with dynamic fields, what else is lurking?
2> is going to be trivial to maintain
3> is worth the risk of screwing it up and making perfectly valid, carefully
thought out installations start failing because we suddenly decide to enforce
rules that have never been in the contract.
4> is at all worth the complexification of the code.
And assuming the "stacked updates" ever actually happens at the Lucene level,
this will all go away anyway....
In particular, I'm -1,000 on anything more onerous than a warning coming out in
the log files, that ideally could be turned off via configuration in the
schema. I'm not convinced that just a warning would have helped Kingston & Co.
in this case anyway, there's a lot of info that comes out in the log file at
startup, might just have been lost in the noise.
FWIW
> 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]
