Yup, that definitely is a bug. My problem was different. Of the 'not-reading-the-documentation-thoroughly' variety. I was indexing nested docs anonymously which unfortunately does not create the necessary pseudo fields to track parent-child relationships. And which was causing the child documents to be removed during atomic updates.
Thanks, Seez On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:30 AM Andreas Hubold <andreas.hub...@coremedia.com> wrote: > True, and this could be checked by seez, who asked yesterday about my > original problem. > > In my case the problem was different, it was caused by this open bug > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15018 > But I have a workaround already. > > Best, > Andreas > > Furkan KAMACI wrote on 19.04.21 20:00: > > Hi Andreas, > > > > Atomic updates are defined within these conditions: > > > > The core functionality of atomically updating a document requires that > all > > fields in your schema must be configured as stored (stored="true") or > > docValues (docValues="true") except for fields which are <copyField/> > > destinations, which must be configured as stored="false". Atomic updates > > are applied to the document represented by the existing stored field > > values. All data in copyField destinations fields must originate from > ONLY > > copyField sources. > > > > If not, you lose your field content. > > > > Kind Regards, > > Furkan KAMACI > > > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:02 PM Andreas Hubold < > andreas.hub...@coremedia.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi seez, > >> > >> no, in my case, nested documents contained only fields as defined in the > >> schema. Actually, I didn't even use dynamic fields at all. It was just > >> the definition of the dynamic catch-all field that led to the problems. > >> It matched the name that was used to set nested documents. Because the > >> catch-all field was set to ignore unknown fields, Solr also ignored > >> nested documents in the code that performed the atomic update. Maybe > >> your problem has a different cause. > >> > >> Best, > >> Andreas > >> > >> seez wrote on 19.04.21 17:48: > >>> Andreas, > >>> > >>> Do your nested documents contain only dynamic fields? I am on 8.6.3 > and I > >>> ran into this exact same issue. However in my case, even after > disabling > >>> catch-all dynamic field, I still see the child documents getting > deleted. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Sent from: https://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-User-f472068.html > >>> . > >> > >> > >
