I am using  6.1.0.
I tried with two different  field types, long and date.
<field name="versionEpoch"  type="long" indexed="true" stored="true" />
<field name="UpdatedDateSD"  type="date" indexed="true" stored="true"/>

I am using this configuration on the solrconfig.xml

<updateRequestProcessorChain default="true">
       <processor class="solr.DocBasedVersionConstraintsProcessorFactory">
         <bool name="ignoreOldUpdates">false</bool>
         <str name="versionField">UpdatedDateSD</str>
       </processor>
  <processor class="solr.DistributedUpdateProcessorFactory" />
       <processor class="solr.RunUpdateProcessorFactory" />
  <processor class="solr.LogUpdateProcessorFactory"/>
  </updateRequestProcessorChain>

i had a look to the wiki page and it says
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Updating+Parts+of+Documents

*Once configured, this update processor will reject (HTTP error code 409)
any attempt to update an existing document where the value of
the my_version_l field in the "new" document is not greater then the value
of that field in the existing document.*

Do you have any tip on how to get same versions not getting rejected.

Thanks a lot.


On 1 June 2017 at 19:04, Susheel Kumar <susheel2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Which version of solr are you using? I tested in 6.0 and if I supply same
> version, it overwrite/update the document exactly as per the wiki
> documentation.
>
> Thanks,
> Susheel
>
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:57 AM, marotosg <marot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks a lot Susheel.
> > I see this is actually what I need.  I have been testing it and  notice
> the
> > value of the field has to be always greater for a new document to get
> > indexed. if you send the same version number it doesn't work.
> >
> > Is it possible somehow to overwrite documents with the same version?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.
> > nabble.com/version-Versioning-using-timespan-tp4338171p4338475.html
> > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
>

Reply via email to