I have figured out the problem. The schema was changed and index has been
deleted and rebuilt since then. But the index files might still contain the old
stale segments.
I replayed the situation by restoring the old data using 6.5, then do the
optimization, then upgrade the 6.6.1, and found ou
This error is not about DocValuesAsStored, but about
multiValued=true|false. It indicates that multiValued is set to
"false" for the current index but "true" in the new schema. At least
that's my guess
Best,
Erick
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Xie, Sean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When I upgrade th
Hi,
When I upgrade the existing SOLR from 6.5.1 to 6.6.1, I’m getting:
cannot change DocValues type from SORTED to SORTED_SET for field “…..”
During the upgrades, there is no change on schema and schema version (we are
using schema version 1.5 so seDocValuesAsStored defaults are not taking into
d 'f1' (expected=SORTED).
Use UninvertingReader or index with docvalues.
f1 is defined as
Notice that I don't have docValues defined. I realize the field type
doesn't allow docValues so why does this group requ
h docvalues.
>
> f1 is defined as
>
> positionIncrementGap="100">
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>required="true" />
>
> Notice that I don't have docValues defined. I realize the field typ
On 02/29/2016 07:59 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:43 AM, David Santamauro
wrote:
You will have noticed below, the field definition does not contain
multiValues=true
What version of the schema are you using? In pre 1.1 schemas,
multiValued="true" is the default if it is omi
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:43 AM, David Santamauro
wrote:
> You will have noticed below, the field definition does not contain
> multiValues=true
What version of the schema are you using? In pre 1.1 schemas,
multiValued="true" is the default if it is omitted.
Cheers
Tom
On 02/29/2016 06:05 AM, Mikhail Khludnev wrote:
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:43 PM, David Santamauro <
david.santama...@gmail.com> wrote:
unexpected docvalues type SORTED_SET for field 'f1' (expected=SORTED). Use
UninvertingReader or index with docvalues.
DocValues is primary citizen api f
gt;
>> f1 is defined as
>>
>> > positionIncrementGap="100">
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> required="true" />
>>
>> Notice that I don't have docValues defined. I realize the field type
>> doesn't allow docValues so why does this group request fail with a
>> docValues error? It did work with 4.8
>>
>> Any clue would be appreciated, thanks
>>
>> David
>>
>
--
Sincerely yours
Mikhail Khludnev
Principal Engineer,
Grid Dynamics
<http://www.griddynamics.com>
index with docvalues.
f1 is defined as
Notice that I don't have docValues defined. I realize the field type
doesn't allow docValues so why does this group request fail with a
docValues error? It did work with 4.8
Any clue would be appreciated, thanks
David
David, this is tad weird. I've seen this error if you turn on docvalues for
an existing field. You can running an "optimize" on your index and see if it
helps.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/docValues-error-tp4260408p4260455.html
Sent from
crementGap="100">
required="true" />
Notice that I don't have docValues defined. I realize the field type
doesn't allow docValues so why does this group request fail with a
docValues error? It did work with 4.8
Any clue would be appreciated, thanks
David
Ugh! I totally missed the highlight.
Thanks for clarifying.
On 11/13/15, 1:07 PM, "Anshum Gupta" wrote:
>Hi Devansh,
>
>Yes you'd need to reindex your data in order to use DocValues. It's
>highlighted here @ the official ref guide :
>
>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/DocVa
Hi Devansh,
Yes you'd need to reindex your data in order to use DocValues. It's
highlighted here @ the official ref guide :
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/DocValues
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Dhutia, Devansh
wrote:
> We have an existing collection with a field called l
We have an existing collection with a field called lastpublishdate of type
tdate. It already has a lot of data indexed, and we want to add docValues to
improve our sorting performance on the field.
The old field definition was:
We we recently changed it to
Is that considered a breaking c
15 matches
Mail list logo
