If you have the test bed, could you just enable full trace log mode and run two most similar tests. Then look for log difference.
It sounds like a bug, but of what kind...? Regards, Alex On 16 Mar 2017 9:16 AM, "Chris Ulicny" <culicny@iq.media> wrote: > iqdocid is already set to be the uniqueKey value. > > I tried reindexing a few documents back into the problematic cloud and am > getting the same behavior of no document found for get handler. > > I've also done some testing on standalone instances as well as some quick > cloud setups (with embedded zk), and I cannot seem to replicate the > problem. For each test, I used the exact same configset that is causing the > issue for us and indexed a document from that instance as well. I can > provide more details if that would be useful in anyway. > > Standalone instance worked > Cloud mode worked regardless of the use of the security plugin > Cloud mode worked regardless of explicit get handler definition > Cloud mode consistently worked with explicitly defining the get handler, > then removing it and reloading the collection > > The only differences that I know of between the tests and the problematic > cloud is that solr is running as a different user and using an external > zookeeper ensemble. The running user has ownership of the solr > installation, log, and data directories. > > I'm going to keep trying different setups to see if I can replicate the > issue, but if anyone has any ideas on what direction might make the most > sense, please let me know. > > Thanks again > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 5:49 PM Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Wait... Is iqdocid set to the <uniqueKey> in your schema? That might > be the missing thing. > > > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Chris Ulicny <culicny@iq.media> wrote: > > Unless the behavior's changed on the way to version 6.3.0, the get > handler > > used to use whatever field is set to be the uniqueKey. We have > successfully > > been using get on a 4.9.0 standalone core with no explicit "id" field > > defined by passing in the value for the uniqueKey field to the get > handler. > > We tend to have a bunch of id fields floating around from different > > sources, so we avoid keeping any of them named as "id" > > > > iqdocid is just a basic string type > > <field name="iqdocid" type="string" multiValued="false" indexed="true" > > required="true" stored="true"/> > > > > I'll do some more testing on standalone versions, and see how that goes. > > > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:52 PM David Hastings < > hastings.recurs...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> from your previous email: > >> "There is no "id" > >> field defined in the schema." > >> > >> you need an id field to use the get handler > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Chris Ulicny <culicny@iq.media> wrote: > >> > >> > I thought that "id" and "ids" were fixed parameters for the get > handler, > >> > but I never remember, so I've already tried both. Each time it comes > back > >> > with the same response of no document. > >> > > >> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:31 PM Alexandre Rafalovitch < > >> arafa...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Actually..... > >> > > > >> > > I think Real Time Get handler has "id" as a magical parameter, not > as > >> > > a field name. It maps to the real id field via the uniqueKey > >> > > definition: > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/RealTime+Get > >> > > > >> > > So, if you have not, could you try the way you originally wrote it. > >> > > > >> > > Regards, > >> > > Alex. > >> > > ---- > >> > > http://www.solr-start.com/ - Resources for Solr users, new and > >> > experienced > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On 15 March 2017 at 13:22, Chris Ulicny <culicny@iq.media> wrote: > >> > > > Sorry, that is a typo. The get is using the iqdocid field. There > is > >> no > >> > > "id" > >> > > > field defined in the schema. > >> > > > > >> > > > solr/TestCollection/get?iqdocid=2957-TV-201604141900 > >> > > > > >> > > > solr/TestCollection/select?q=*:*&fq=iqdocid:2957-TV-201604141900 > >> > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:15 PM Erick Erickson < > >> > erickerick...@gmail.com> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > >> Is this a typo or are you trying to use get with an "id" field > and > >> > > >> your filter query uses "iqdocid"? > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Best, > >> > > >> Erick > >> > > >> > >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Chris Ulicny <culicny@iq.media> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > Yes, we're using a fixed schema with the iqdocid field set as > the > >> > > >> uniqueKey. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:28 AM Alexandre Rafalovitch < > >> > > >> arafa...@gmail.com> > >> > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> What is your uniqueKey? Is it iqdocid? > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> Regards, > >> > > >> >> Alex. > >> > > >> >> ---- > >> > > >> >> http://www.solr-start.com/ - Resources for Solr users, new > and > >> > > >> experienced > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> On 15 March 2017 at 11:24, Chris Ulicny <culicny@iq.media> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> > Hi, > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > I've been trying to use the get handler for a new solr cloud > >> > > >> collection > >> > > >> >> we > >> > > >> >> > are using, and something seems to be amiss. > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > We are running 6.3.0, so we did not explicitly define the > >> request > >> > > >> handler > >> > > >> >> > in the solrconfig since it's supposed to be implicitly > defined. > >> > We > >> > > >> also > >> > > >> >> > have the update log enabled with the default configuration. > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > Whenever I send a get query for a document already known to > be > >> in > >> > > the > >> > > >> >> > collection, I get no documents returned. But when I use a > >> filter > >> > > >> query on > >> > > >> >> > the uniqueKey field for the same value I get the document > back > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > solr/TestCollection/get?id=2957-TV-201604141900 > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> solr/TestCollection/select?q=*:*&fq=iqdocid:2957-TV-201604141900 > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > Is there some configuration that I am missing? > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > Thanks, > >> > > >> >> > Chris > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> >
