Yes it is. But in my case, these are metadata fields, and I need them to be searchable, facetable, sortable in the context of the main text fields. Will I be able to achieve that if I index them in another core?
Upayavira wrote > My question would be, why are you updating 10m documents? Is it because > of denormalised fields? E.g. one system I have needs to reindex all data > for a publication when that publication switches between active and > inactive. > > If this is the case, you can perhaps achieve the same using joins. Store > the publications, and their status, in another core. Then, to find > documents for active publications could be: > > q=harry potter&fq={!join fromIndex=pubs from=pubID > to=pubID}status:active > > This would find documents containing the terms 'harry potter' which are > associated with active publications. > > Changing the status of a publication would require a single document in > the 'pubs' core to be changed, rather than re-indexing all documents. > > Does this hit what you are trying to achieve? > > Upayavira > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013, at 03:51 PM, Jack Krupansky wrote: >> Correct. >> >> Generally, I think most apps will benefit from partial update, especially >> if >> they have a lot of fields. Otherwise, they will have two round trip >> requests >> rather than one. Solr does the reading of existing document values more >> efficiently, under the hood, with no need to format for the response and >> parse the incoming (redundant) values. >> >> OTOH, if the client has all the data anyway (maybe because it wants to >> display the data before update), it may be easier to do a full update. >> >> You could do an actual performance test, but I would suggest that >> (generally) partial update will be more efficient than a full update. >> >> And Lucene can do add and delete rather quickly, so that should not be a >> concern for modest to medium size documents, but clearly would be an >> issue >> for large and very large documents (hundreds of fields or large field >> values.) >> >> -- Jack Krupansky >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: adfel70 >> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:40 AM >> To: > solr-user@.apache >> Subject: Partial update vs full update performance >> >> Hi >> As I understand, even if I use partial update, lucene can't really update >> documents. Solr will use the stored fields in order to pass the values to >> lucene, and a delete,add opeartions will still be performed. >> >> If this is the case is there a performance issue when comparing partial >> update to full update? >> >> My documents have dozens of fields, most of them are not stored. >> I sometimes need to go through a portion of the documents and modify a >> single field. >> What I do right now is deleting the portion I want to update, and adding >> them with the updated field. >> This of course takes a lot of time (I'm talking about ten of millions of >> documents). >> >> Should I move to using partial update? will it improve the indexing time >> at >> all? will it improve the indexing time in such extent that I would better >> be >> storing the fields I don't need stored just for the partial update >> feature? >> >> thanks >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Partial-update-vs-full-update-performance-tp4069948.html >> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Partial-update-vs-full-update-performance-tp4069948p4069974.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.