Hi,
I was able to work around the issue. I'm now using a custom
UpdateRequestProcessor that removes undefined fields, so that I was able to
remove the catch-all dynamic field "ignored" from my schema.. Of course, one
has to be careful to not remove fields that are used for nested documents in
the
Fetch would work for my specific case (since I’m working with id’s there’s no
one to many), if I was able to restrict fetch’s target domain with a query. I
would first get all possible deleted ids, then use fetch to the items
collection. But then the current fetch implementation would find all d
Sure, raise a JIRA. Thanks for the update...
> On Nov 24, 2020, at 4:12 AM, Andreas Hubold
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I was able to work around the issue. I'm now using a custom
> UpdateRequestProcessor that removes undefined fields, so that I was able to
> remove the catch-all dynamic field "ignore
This is a common point of confusion. There are two phases for creating a query,
query _parsing_ first, then the analysis chain for the parsed result.
So what e-dismax sees in the two cases is:
Name_enUS:“high tech” -> two tokens, since there are two of them pf2 comes into
play.
Name_enUS:“high-
Is the normal/standard solution here to regex remove the '-'s and
combine them into a single token?
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:00 AM Erick Erickson wrote:
>
> This is a common point of confusion. There are two phases for creating a
> query,
> query _parsing_ first, then the analysis chain for the
Hey Craig,
I think this will be tricky to do with the current Rule-Based
Authorization support. As you pointed out in your initial post -
there are lots of ways to delete documents. The Rule-Based Auth code
doesn't inspect request bodies (AFAIK), so it's going to have trouble
differentiating bet
Are there any good workarounds/parameters we can use to fix this so it
doesn't have to be solved client side?
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 7:50 AM matthew sporleder
wrote:
> Is the normal/standard solution here to regex remove the '-'s and
> combine them into a single token?
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
Thank you for the response
The use case I have in mind is trying to approximate incremental updates (as
are available in Sybase or MSSQL, to which I am more accustomed).
We are wanting to upgrade a large collection from Solr7.4 to Solr8.5. It turns
out that Solr8.5 cannot run against the curren
