http://www.datastax.com/support-forums/topic/do-not-trigger-solr-commit-when-updating-a-stored-only-field Software, Support, and Training for Apache Cassandra en-US Sun, 26 May 2013 08:48:00 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.3 q http://www.datastax.com/support-forums/search.php http://www.datastax.com/support-forums/topic/do-not-trigger-solr-commit-when-updating-a-stored-only-field#post-2048 Wed, 06 Jun 2012 18:43:35 +0000 Anonymous 2048@http://www.datastax.com/support-forums/ <p>Hi rockbrain,<br /> i actually make it work!<br /> I was aware of the links you posted. I don't understand why it wasn't behaving as expected but it's sorted now :)</p> <p>I still have a curiosity, as it's mentioned in the other topic (<a href="http://www.datastax.com/support-forums/topic/re-indexing-partial-fields-in-dse-20)" rel="nofollow">http://www.datastax.com/support-forums/topic/re-indexing-partial-fields-in-dse-20)</a>, whenever you update a field, under the hood the entire document is deleted and added from the Solr index. Does it means that it performs a soft-commit?</p> <p>I guess these information are stored in memory. Is there a way to limit the amount of memory used (i imagine a case where you have a lot of updates which means a lot of memory used to keep these new documents before being flushed to disk).<br /> thank you! </p> http://www.datastax.com/support-forums/topic/do-not-trigger-solr-commit-when-updating-a-stored-only-field#post-2038 Tue, 05 Jun 2012 21:05:31 +0000 Anonymous 2038@http://www.datastax.com/support-forums/ <p>Edo, Ok sounds like it could be a bug. Are you aware of this?</p> <p><a href="http://www.datastax.com/docs/datastax_enterprise2.0/search/dse_search_cluster#updating-individual-fields-in-a-solr-document" rel="nofollow">http://www.datastax.com/docs/datastax_enterprise2.0/search/dse_search_cluster#updating-individual-fields-in-a-solr-document</a></p> <p>Also this is a thread on a similar topic:</p> <p><a href="http://www.datastax.com/support-forums/topic/re-indexing-partial-fields-in-dse-20" rel="nofollow">http://www.datastax.com/support-forums/topic/re-indexing-partial-fields-in-dse-20</a></p> <p>Internally DSE is getting the key from Solr then loading the data from Cassandra. Maybe there is a missing step that requires a commit. Is there a large problem with calling even a soft commit for you? </p> http://www.datastax.com/support-forums/topic/do-not-trigger-solr-commit-when-updating-a-stored-only-field#post-2032 Mon, 04 Jun 2012 20:09:58 +0000 Anonymous 2032@http://www.datastax.com/support-forums/ <p>Hi rockbrain,<br /> i have tried with both SolrJ and CQL.</p> <p>Just to keep you in the loop, in case someone else is interested, i tried to make few changes to the Solr configuration, but without luck :(<br /> - removed the autocommit option which is set in solrconfig.xml (updateHandler). Without it the commit is not fired but documents are not updated<br /> - removed Solr documentCache</p> <p>After a partial update if you inspect the document using CQL changes are visible (as expected). However with a Solr query the document remains unchanged until a commit is called (or you restart DSE). </p> http://www.datastax.com/support-forums/topic/do-not-trigger-solr-commit-when-updating-a-stored-only-field#post-2029 Mon, 04 Jun 2012 16:20:20 +0000 Anonymous 2029@http://www.datastax.com/support-forums/ <p>Hi, great question. Are you using SolrJ or CQL to update the document / row? </p> http://www.datastax.com/support-forums/topic/do-not-trigger-solr-commit-when-updating-a-stored-only-field#post-2021 Sat, 02 Jun 2012 01:27:46 +0000 Anonymous 2021@http://www.datastax.com/support-forums/ <p>I am trying DSE and Solr.<br /> I started from the wikipedia example and i changed the Solr schema setting a field as stored only. I am amazed from the fact that stored fields (with indexed=false) are not persisted inside the Solr index, great feature!</p> <p>I tried to execute a partial update on one document, changing the value of the stored-only field. I saw that the update triggers a Solr commit with a subsequent cache refresh.<br /> I am just wondering if it make sense to avoid the Solr commit when stored-only fields are updated. Ideally it could improve query performance since caches are not regenerated.</p> <p>What do you think? Is it something doable? </p>