[
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
