On 1/31/07, Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jan 31, 2007, at 6:39 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote: > : Oh, and there have been numerous people interested in "updateable" > : documents, so it would be nice if that part was in the update > handler. > > We'd have to make it very clear that this only works if all fields are > STORED. That is perfectly reasonable, for sure. And I would support an "update" feature issuing an exception if it detected this case. There is an important caveat to all fields being stored though... if an update was sending in updated fields for all the non-stored fields, and only stored fields were being copied internally, all would be fine too.
I think there might be two useful types of updates: 1) overwrite original field 2) add an additional value for a multi-valued field (useful for tagging?)
I think eventually we could have this sort of feature internally copy the terms for non-stored fields somehow, but maybe that would only come along once Lucene supported something to facilitate this more?
Not unless you store more info (a lot more info). We sould also be able to copy unstored fields with term vectors stored. ParallelReader might also hold some promise (putting a field to be updated in a separate index) The problem is that the lucene ids need to be kept in sync... I don't know how to do that w/o reindexing. -Yonik
