-document-leaves-old-fields-behind-tp4206710p4207164.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
:
"56769138-4a03-4ed6-8b29-8030d0941b08"} , "abcsourceEnvironment" : "fishing"
, "abcstate" : true}, { "abcpublished" : { "$date" :
"2015-05-19T21:21:31.731Z"} , "abcpublishedBy" : "jelly" ,
"abctargetEnviro
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Reindex-of-document-leaves-old-fields-behind-tp4206710p4206946.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Reindex-of-document-leaves-old-fields-behind-tp4206710p4206908.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
placement. I will try the above test via SolrJ.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Reindex-of-document-leaves-old-fields-behind-tp4206710p4206886.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
f SolrJ is somehow involved in performing an atomic
update rather than replacement. I will try the above test via SolrJ.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Reindex-of-document-leaves-old-fields-behind-tp4206710p4206886.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list
On 5/21/2015 9:54 AM, tuxedomoon wrote:
> I'm doing all my index to leader 1 and have not specified any router
> configuration. But there is an equal distribution of 240M docs across 5
> shards. I think I've been stating I have 3 shards in these posts, I have 5,
> sorry.
>
> How do I know what k
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Reindex-of-document-leaves-old-fields-behind-tp4206710p4206869.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 5/21/2015 9:02 AM, tuxedomoon wrote:
> l>> If it is "implicit" then
>>> you may have indexed the new document to a different shard, which means
>>> that it is now in your index more than once, and which one gets returned
>>> may not be predictable.
>
> If a document with uniqueKey "1234" is ass
ed to a shard by SolrCloud,
implicit routing won't a reindex of "1234" be assigned to the same shard?
If not you'd have dups all over the cluster.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Reindex-of-document-leaves-old-fields-behind-tp420671
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Reindex-of-document-leaves-old-fields-behind-tp4206710p4206841.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
ch reindex.
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Reindex-of-document-leaves-old-fields-behind-tp4206710p4206732.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
request for the same document with cache busting produce the same
unwanted fields, so I doubt the "correct" one is hiding somewhere. I can
also see the timestamp going up with each reindex.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Reindex-of-document-leaves-
On 5/20/2015 4:43 PM, tuxedomoon wrote:
> I'm reindexing Mongo docs into SolrCloud. The new docs have had a few fields
> removed so upon reindexing those fields should be gone in Solr. They are
> not. So the result is a new doc merged with an old doc rather than a
> replacement which is what I n
with my SolrJ client, Solr config or
something else.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Reindex-of-document-leaves-old-fields-behind-tp4206710.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
15 matches
Mail list logo