Re: In-place update vs Atomic updates

["raj.yadav" <ra...@cse.ism.ac.in>]

Shawn Heisey-2 wrote
> Atomic updates are nearly identical to simple indexing, except that the 
> existing document is read from the index to populate a new document 
> along with whatever updates were requested, then the new document is 
> indexed and the old one is deleted.

As per the above statement in atomic-update, it reindex the entire document
and deletes the old one.
But I was going through solr documentation regarding the  ( solr document
update policy
<https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/8_5/updating-parts-of-documents.html> 
) and found these two contradicting statements:

1. /The first is atomic updates. This approach allows changing only one or
more fields of a document without having to reindex the entire document./

2./In regular atomic updates, the entire document is reindexed internally
during the application of the update. /

Is there something I'm missing here?

Regards,
Raj



--
Sent from: https://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-User-f472068.html

Re: In-place update vs Atomic updates

[Shawn Heisey <ap...@elyograg.org>]

On 7/14/2020 12:21 PM, raj.yadav wrote:
> As per the above statement in atomic-update, it reindex the entire document
> and deletes the old one.
> But I was going through solr documentation regarding the  ( solr document
> update policy
> <https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/8_5/updating-parts-of-documents.html>
> ) and found these two contradicting statements:
> 
> 1. /The first is atomic updates. This approach allows changing only one or
> more fields of a document without having to reindex the entire document./

Here is how I would rewrite that paragraph to make it correct.  The 
asterisks represent bold text:

1. The first is atomic updates.  This approach allows the indexing 
request to contain *only* the desired changes, instead of the entire 
document.

> 2./In regular atomic updates, the entire document is reindexed internally
> during the application of the update. /

This is correct as written.

Thanks,
Shawn