On 9/26/23 14:06, Rahul Goswami wrote:
I typically set the field value to null in an atomic update if I want to remove the field. Eg: If a document is soft deleted via a field "isVisible":false , then I would want to drop its "content" field by setting it to null (since it is large and not required anymore) in an atomic update. So as a product behaviour, I am always expecting the behavior you mentioned for SolrJ 9.
I am dealing with a customer that has a number of homegrown Java services using SolrJ to talk to Solr.
From what I have seen, they have been relying on what I would call incorrect behavior in Solr and SolrJ 4.7. On setting up new environments using Solr and SolrJ version 9, suddenly the system does not behave the same.
It's very much a "how did this EVER work?" situation ... and I keep finding it hard to believe that their developers would have actually intended to do the things that have been observed.
Thanks, Shawn
