>> Any case where it would break? If a query uses multiple fields it would break. That is, usually all the fields need to be in doc in index 2 - not just the modified one.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com>wrote: > This seems like far too much work if I'm reading things right. You can't > update > a field, but you #can# update a document which actually re-index that > document > under the covers (you have to have a way to uniquely identify the doc). > Then, when > you reopen your index reader, you'll only see the new value for the one > field that's > different. This doesn't rely on any second index at all. > > So is there something I'm missing here that caused you to take the route > you're > taking? Because I'd just try updating the document and reopening the reader > first... > > HTH > Erick > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Nilesh Vijaywargiay < > nilesh.vi...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > Hey Erick, Sure. > > * > > * > > *What I am trying to achieve:* > > > > A) Update a field in Index A > > B) When searching for that old field, it should be a miss. > > > > *How I achieved it* > > > > *Index 1 * > > Doc 1 - Field1, Value 1 > > Doc 2 - Field1, Value 1 > > > > *Index 2* > > Doc 1 - Field1, Modified_Value 1 > > Doc 2 - EMPTY > > > > Add index 2 before Index 1 in the parallel reader. > > In short, I am creating a new index with same number of documents but all > > the documents are empty except the ones I want to update. > > > > *RESULTS:* > > If I search for Field1:Value1, I get a miss[What I wanted] > > If I search for Field1:Modified_Value 1, I get a hit[What I wanted] > > > > *PROBLEM* > > I am kinda finding it surprising that I am able to update a field[I was > > told > > I can't]. Ofcourse there is downside of creating a new index with dummy > > documents which might be huge. But apart from that, Is there something > > fishy > > about it? Any case where it would break? > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com > > >wrote: > > > > > No. And you don't even want to try... Document IDs are NOT invariant. > > > Particularly > > > when you delete a document and optimize an index, all the documents > that > > > come > > > after the deleted one get new doc IDs. Trying to keep these two indexes > > in > > > synch > > > will be a nightmare. > > > > > > Perhaps you could explain what you're trying to accomplish and we could > > > suggest > > > other approaches. See: > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~hossman/#xyproblem<http://people.apache.org/%7Ehossman/#xyproblem> > > > > > > Your question appears to be an "XY Problem" ... that is: you are > dealing > > > with "X", you are assuming "Y" will help you, and you are asking about > > "Y" > > > without giving more details about the "X" so that we can understand the > > > full issue. Perhaps the best solution doesn't involve "Y" at all? > > > See Also: http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=542341 > > > > > > Best, > > > Erick > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Nilesh Vijaywargiay < > > > nilesh.vi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I have two index, A and B. Can two documents doc1[in index A] and > > doc2[in > > > > index B] have a common field? doc1 and doc2 have same document Id's. > > > > > > > > > >
