Thanks Erick. Will certainly take a look. I am looking to do this for binary objects since i have started with that.
-- karthik On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com>wrote: > Take a look at SOLR-445, I started down this road a while > ago but then got distracted. If you'd like to pick it up and > take it farther, feel free. I haven't applied that patch in a > while, so I don't know how easy it will be to apply. > > Last I left it, it would do much of what you're asking for for > xml documents fed to solr, and I was going to get around to > some of the other input types but haven't yet. That was what > committing this was waiting on. > > Best > Erick > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 4:39 PM, karthik <kmoha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Everyone, > > > > I am trying to use Solrj to add documents to my solr index. In the > process > > of playing around with the implementation I noticed that when we add > > documents in a batch to Solr the response back from solr is just - status > & > > qtime. I am using Solr 3.1 right now. > > > > I came across the following scenario that I would like to handle > carefully > > - > > > > When there are exceptions caused by one of the document within the batch > > then the documents after that specific documents doesnt make it to the > index > > ie., lets say out of 100 documents trying to get added, doc 56 has an > issue > > due to schema restrictions, etc., then docs 57 - 100 dont make it to the > > index. Even for docs 1 - 55 to get indexed I need the commit outside the > > exception handling block of the addBeans() method. > > > > In the above scenario I would like Solr (or) Solrj to return the doc id's > > that got indexed successfully or the doc id's that failed. I would also > like > > for the documents 57 - 100 to be processed & not get dropped abruptly > > because doc 56 had an issue. > > > > Not sure if there is a way for me to get these details/functionality > right > > now. If I cant get them, I can try to take a crack at developing a patch. > I > > would require a lot more help in the latter scenario ;-) > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > -- karthik > > >
