Hi again,

It seemed to work fine but in the end duplicates are not overwritten. We first 
run the SignatureProcessor and then the DistributedProcessor. If we do it the 
other way around the digest field receives multiple values and throws errors. 
Is there anything else we can do or another patch to try?

Thanks
Markus
 
 
-----Original message-----
> From:Markus Jelsma <markus.jel...@openindex.io>
> Sent: Mon 21-May-2012 15:58
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org; Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com>
> Subject: RE: SolrCloud deduplication
> 
> Hi,
> 
> SOLR-2822 seems to work just fine as long as the SignatureProcessor precedes 
> the DistributedProcessor in the update chain. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Markus
> 
>  
>  
> -----Original message-----
> > From:Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Fri 18-May-2012 16:05
> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org; Markus Jelsma <markus.jel...@openindex.io>
> > Subject: Re: SolrCloud deduplication
> > 
> > Hey Markus -
> > 
> > When I ran into a similar issue with another update proc, I created 
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3215 so that I could order 
> > things to avoid this. I have not committed this yet though, in favor of 
> > waiting for https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2822
> > 
> > Go vote? :)
> > 
> > On May 18, 2012, at 7:49 AM, Markus Jelsma wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Deduplication on SolrCloud through the SignatureUpdateRequestProcessor is 
> > > not 
> > > functional anymore. The problem is that documents are passed multiple 
> > > times 
> > > through the URP and the digest field is added as if it is an multi valued 
> > > field. 
> > > If the field is not multi valued you'll get this typical error. Changing 
> > > the 
> > > order or URP's in the chain does not solve the problem.
> > > 
> > > Any hints on how to resolve the issue? Is this a problem in the 
> > > SignatureUpdateRequestProcessor and does it need to be updated to work 
> > > with 
> > > SolrCloud? 
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Markus
> > 
> > - Mark Miller
> > lucidimagination.com
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 

Reply via email to