Okay, thanks for confirming On Tue, Feb 11, 2025, 18:47 Matthias Krüger < mkrue...@opensourceconnections.com> wrote:
> Yes. The only advantage of "atomic update" is that you don't need to send > all fields in an update. Still all fields > will get re-analyzed (the ones that were not part of the request are > restored from their stored field value) > and reindexed. It is more of a convenience feature than a performance > improvement. > > In-place updates happen on DocValues only. They are just overwritten with > their new value without affecting > the rest of the document. An ecom use case would be volatile numeric values > such as stock levels or pricing information. > You can use them in filters, facets and get them as part of the document > response. > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 1:26 PM Uday Kumar <uday.p...@indiamart.com > .invalid> > wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > >
