Hi These term* functions are for indexed fields (inverted index) per se. I'm wondering if it's ever possible to implement them for points or dv columns.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 1:51 PM Uday Kumar <uday.p...@indiamart.com.invalid> wrote: > Hi, > As a part of In-Place updates POC, I am testing schema and functionality by > running queries using different function queries > > *sample schema:* > <fieldType name="int" class="solr.IntPointField" omitNorms="true" > positionIncrementGap="0" docValues="true"/> > <field name="InPlaceField" type="int" indexed="false" stored="false" > required="false" omitNorms="true" multiValued="false"/> > > *I have found the termfreq() function is not working on pointFields. i.e > giving "0" always* > > *Sample Query:* > q.alt=*:*&fl=testValue:*termfreq(InPlaceField,699)* > > Other functions which are not working: > sumtotaltermfreq(), tf(), totaltermfreq() etc > > I have found this link (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13757), > where it mentioned it does not support > > Do we have any alternative for the same without impacting performance of > solr? > > *Thanks & Regards,* > *Uday Kumar* > > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 6:42 AM Uday Kumar <uday.p...@indiamart.com> > wrote: > > > 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 > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > -- Sincerely yours Mikhail Khludnev
