Hi Susheel, My question is about the name of the "uniqueKey" field rather than the composition of its values. By default, Solr uses a field with the name "id". For reasons of ambiguity with the applications in my environment, I am considering to change the field name to, for example, "docId". Is that what you have also done for your compound keys?
One important aspect to consider after using a "uniqueKey" with a different name is http://lucene.apache.org/solr/6_3_0/solr-solrj/org/apache/solr/client/solrj/impl/CloudSolrClient.html : "This class assumes the id field for your documents is called 'id' - if this is not the case, you must set the right name with setIdField(String)." I am wondering whether there are more details or pitfalls that I should be aware of? Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards, Matthias Falkenberg Team Lead - IBM Digital Experience Development IBM Watson Content Hub, IBM WebSphere Portal, IBM Web Content Manager IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH / Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: Martina Koederitz Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen / Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294 From: Susheel Kumar <susheel2...@gmail.com> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Date: 05-02-17 03:21 AM Subject: Re: Issues with uniqueKey != id? Hello, So far in my experience haven't come across scenario where unique key/id is not required. Most of the times, I have put combination of few fields like aggregate or compound keys <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_key>. (e.g. organization_id + employee_id etc.). The reason it makes sense to have some form of unique key is two fold a) if there is no unique key, it kind of become impossible to update any existing records since you can't uniquely identify them which means your index will keep growing b) If no unique key then when you return search results, you wouldn't have anything to relate with other/external system Sometime you may have time-series data in which case may be timestamp or combination of timestamp / other field may make sense but yes Unique key is not mandatory. Thanks, Susheel On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Matthias X Falkenberg <mfalk...@de.ibm.com> wrote: > Howdy, > > In the Solr Wiki I stumbled upon a somewhat vague statement on the > uniqueKey: > > > https://wiki.apache.org/solr/SchemaXml#The_Unique_Key_Field > > It shouldn't matter whether you rename this to something else (and > change the <uniqueKey> value), but occasionally it has in the past. We > recommend that you just leave this definition alone. > > I'd be very grateful for any positive or negative experiences with > "uniqueKey" not being set to "id" - especially if your experiences are > related to Solr 6.2.1+. > > Many thanks, > > Matthias Falkenberg > > IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH / Vorsitzende des > Aufsichtsrats: Martina Koederitz > Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen / Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, > HRB 243294 > >
