ing a solr database from 7.7.1 to 8.7.0
EXTERNAL EMAIL - Be cautious of all links and attachments.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Business Park | Wavendon | Milton Keynes | MK17
8LX
<http://www.unisys.com/>
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY
MATERIAL and is for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this
in error, please contact the sender and delete the
ys>
[Grey_UB] <http://blogs.unisys.com/>
From: Dyer, Jim
mailto:james.d...@ingramcontent.com>>
Sent: 11 January 2021 22:58
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org<mailto:solr-user@lucene.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Query over migrating a solr database from 7.7.1 to 8.7.0
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Jim
Sent: 11 January 2021 22:58
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Query over migrating a solr database from 7.7.1 to 8.7.0
EXTERNAL EMAIL - Be cautious of all links and attachments.
When we upgraded from 7.x to 8.x, I ran into an issue similar to yours:
when updating an existing documen
eature was added for nested documents, this field
somehow became mandatory in order for updates to work properly, at least in
some cases.
From: Flowerday, Matthew J
Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2021 4:44 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Query over migrating a solr database from 7.7.
Did you commit?
> On Jan 9, 2021, at 5:44 AM, Flowerday, Matthew J
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi There
>
> As a test I stopped Solr and ran the IndexUpgrader tool on the database to
> see if this might fix the issue. It completed OK but unfortunately the issue
> still occurs – a new version of the re
Hi There
As a test I stopped Solr and ran the IndexUpgrader tool on the database to
see if this might fix the issue. It completed OK but unfortunately the issue
still occurs - a new version of the record on solr is created rather than
updating the original record.
It looks to me as if the r
