Update specific field on Solr index

[Chamnap Chhorn <ch...@gmail.com>]

Hello,

I'm working on solr 1.4 with around 10 millions documents. Usually, it's
fine. However, the issue arises when I add new field to the schema.xml, I
need to reindex the whole database for that new field. Indexing the whole
database with the whole properties takes so long to do. It would be better
if I index only that new field and pass it to solr.

I'm not using DIH provided by solr. I'm using my rake script to index
documents; it's written in Ruby.

As I know lucence doesn't have update operation. It has only DELETE and ADD
statement. If I send the partial document with only few fields, the new
document will contain only few fields.

Is there any better way to do it?

-- 
Chhorn Chamnap
http://chamnapchhorn.blogspot.com/

Re: Update specific field on Solr index

[Otis Gospodnetic <ot...@yahoo.com>]

Hi Chhorn,

There is currently no better way - you need to update/re-add the whole document.
But Solr 1.4 is rather old.  If you get Solr 3.4 your indexing speed will go up noticeably!

Otis
----
Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/


>________________________________
>From: Chamnap Chhorn <ch...@gmail.com>
>To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
>Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 11:31 PM
>Subject: Update specific field on Solr index
>
>Hello,
>
>I'm working on solr 1.4 with around 10 millions documents. Usually, it's
>fine. However, the issue arises when I add new field to the schema.xml, I
>need to reindex the whole database for that new field. Indexing the whole
>database with the whole properties takes so long to do. It would be better
>if I index only that new field and pass it to solr.
>
>I'm not using DIH provided by solr. I'm using my rake script to index
>documents; it's written in Ruby.
>
>As I know lucence doesn't have update operation. It has only DELETE and ADD
>statement. If I send the partial document with only few fields, the new
>document will contain only few fields.
>
>Is there any better way to do it?
>
>-- 
>Chhorn Chamnap
>http://chamnapchhorn.blogspot.com/
>
>
>