Okay got it! So, to summarize
when a field needs to be updated, *by traditional update:* all fields are changed and entire document is reindexed/replaced *by atomic update:* specific fields are changed and document is reindexed *by in-place update:* Only specific fields are changed and those specific fields are reindexed Hope, my understanding is right...? *Thanks & Regards,* *Uday Kumar* *Product Search Tech* On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 5:02 PM Mikhail Khludnev <m...@apache.org> wrote: > Hello please find the comments inline > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 12:43 PM Uday Kumar <uday.p...@indiamart.com > .invalid> > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > *In Place updates:* > > Works with fields which are non-indexed and non-stored > > > docValue-based numeric fields. > > > > 1. This meant we cannot query on this field and cannot display the value > of > > the field. > > > Such fields at least might be queried with range query parser, but iirc > (but might be wrong), there's a handling in regular term:query syntax for > such fields. > > > > 2. Found one contradictory statement in *in-place* updates section > > Link > > < > > > https://solr.apache.org/guide/solr/latest/indexing-guide/partial-document-updates.html#in-place-updates > > > > > "In regular > > **atomic updates,** > > > the entire document is reindexed internally > > during the application of the update. > > > > > However, in this approach, > > (implying in-place udt) > > > only the > > fields to be updated are affected and the rest of the documents are not > > reindexed internally" > > > > Isn't this contradictory with the atomic updates concept? > > > Yes. It is clear to me. Don't see a contraction. > > Please share your experiment results afterwards. > > > -- > Sincerely yours > Mikhail Khludnev >
