[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14467?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17117826#comment-17117826
 ] 

Michael Gibney commented on SOLR-14467:
---------------------------------------

More specifically, I'm thinking we might be able to do something like this?:
{code:java}
    public Object getMergedResult() {
      final BucketData bucketData;
      switch (bucketType) {
        default:
          // NOTE: TERM buckets would always have at least one shard with a 
"materialized" bucket, so if
          // all the buckets are implied/empty, we can infer we're dealing with 
the allBuckets bucket.
        case ALL_BUCKET:
          bucketData = ALL_BUCKETS_SPECIAL_BUCKET_DATA;
          break;
        case TERM:
          bucketData = mergedData;
          break;
      }
      return bucketData.externalize(false);
    }
  }
{code}

> inconsistent server errors combining relatedness() with allBuckets:true
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-14467
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14467
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Bug
>      Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) 
>          Components: Facet Module
>            Reporter: Chris M. Hostetter
>            Priority: Major
>         Attachments: SOLR-14467.patch, SOLR-14467.patch, 
> SOLR-14467_test.patch, SOLR-14467_test.patch
>
>
> While working on randomized testing for SOLR-13132 i discovered a variety of 
> different ways that JSON Faceting's "allBuckets" option can fail when 
> combined with the "relatedness()" function.
> I haven't found a trivial way to manual reproduce this, but i have been able 
> to trigger the failures with a trivial patch to {{TestCloudJSONFacetSKG}} 
> which i will attach.
> Based on the nature of the failures it looks like it may have something to do 
> with multiple segments of different sizes, and or resizing the SlotAccs ?
> The relatedness() function doesn't have much (any?) existing tests in place 
> that leverage "allBuckets" so this is probably a bug that has always existed 
> -- it's possible it may be excessively cumbersome to fix and we might 
> nee/wnat to just document that incompatibility and add some code to try and 
> detect if the user combines these options and if so fail with a 400 error?



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to