[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5211?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16504328#comment-16504328 ]
Mikhail Khludnev commented on SOLR-5211: ---------------------------------------- bq. relatively trivial to know if the _root_ field exists in the index [~ysee...@gmail.com], I see a few challenges here. Does this approach provide consistent behaviour if we start from empty index, then sent parent and standalone, oppose to reverse sequence? Does _\_root\_ field existence_ rely on commit or we can detect it in concurrently flushing segment and/or buffered in another thread? I just don't think that checking what's in the index is feasible on update. bq. updates could use 2 update terms (one for id and one for _root_) So far it accepts only one. Is it possible to pass the second one? > updating parent as childless makes old children orphans > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: SOLR-5211 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5211 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: update > Affects Versions: 4.5, 6.0 > Reporter: Mikhail Khludnev > Assignee: Mikhail Khludnev > Priority: Major > Attachments: SOLR-5211.patch, SOLR-5211.patch > > > if I have parent with children in the index, I can send update omitting > children. as a result old children become orphaned. > I suppose separate \_root_ fields makes much trouble. I propose to extend > notion of uniqueKey, and let it spans across blocks that makes updates > unambiguous. > WDYT? Do you like to see a test proves this issue? -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org