The Co-location section of this document  
http://searchhub.org/2013/06/13/solr-cloud-document-routing/ might be of 
interest to you.  It mentions the need for using Solr Cloud routing to group 
documents in the same core so that grouping can work properly.

--Andrew Shumway


-----Original Message-----
From: Bryan Bende [mailto:bbe...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 9:01 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Incorrect group.ngroups value

Thanks Jim.

We've been using the composite id approach where we put group value as the 
leading portion of the id (i.e. groupValue!documentid), so I was expecting all 
of the documents for a given group to be in the same shard, but at least this 
gives me something to look into. I'm still suspicious of something changing 
between 4.6.1 and 4.8.1, because we've had the grouping implemented this way 
for a while, and only on the exact day we upgraded did someone bring this 
problem forward. I will keep investigating, thanks.


On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 9:18 AM, jim ferenczi <jim.feren...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Bryan,
> This is a known limitations of the grouping.
> https://wiki.apache.org/solr/FieldCollapsing#RequestParameters
>
> group.ngroups:
>
>
> *WARNING: If this parameter is set to true on a sharded environment, 
> all the documents that belong to the same group have to be located in 
> the same shard, otherwise the count will be incorrect. If you are 
> using SolrCloud <https://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrCloud>, consider 
> using "custom hashing"*
>
> Cheers,
> Jim
>
>
>
> 2014-08-21 21:44 GMT+02:00 Bryan Bende <bbe...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Is there any known issue with using group.ngroups in a distributed 
> > Solr using version 4.8.1 ?
> >
> > I recently upgraded a cluster from 4.6.1 to 4.8.1, and I'm noticing
> several
> > queries where ngroups will be more than the actual groups returned 
> > in the response. For example, ngroups will say 5, but then there 
> > will be 3
> groups
> > in the response. It is not happening on all queries, only some.
> >
>

Reply via email to