Thanks for the context.

I'd like to do a few things:
* Document that "overwrite" is a (potentially dangerous) peformance hack
for documents that are assumed to be already unique.  It is not to be used
to deliberately violate the uniqueKey constraint; this is considered
erroneous and unsupported use.
* Document *and enforce* that "overwrite" does not work with the
UpdateLog.  User error; let them know.  While we maintain the UpdateLog, I
don't want to have the complexity burden of considering how to support
overwrite=true.  I'm not saying it's super complex, only that UpdateLog is
already complex and I don't think the value of overwrite is good enough for
me to want to maintain the two together.  I hope others can appreciate this
point; I'm don't wish to be difficult.  If someone volunteers to make it
work in a way that isn't complex then go for it.  *It appears it might work
today but I wish to break this.*
* Consequently, ConvertedLegacyTest needs fixing.  If the intent of the
legacy test is to see that the document can be added and violate the
uniqueKey, then this test needs to use a config without the UpdateLog.  Or
we keep the default config (with UpdateLog) and adjust the test's
expectations.

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 1:42 PM Yonik Seeley <ysee...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yep, It's only for performance. I know a number of people using
> overwrite=false when doing bulk indexing, and then often later using normal
> adds for incremental changes.
>
> As far as why "overwrite(Pending|Committed)?" exists at all: it's been
> there since Solr was open sourced (SOLR-1), so there wouldn't be a
> discussion to find.  Lucene had no concept of unique IDs or overwriting at
> the time and it was all implemented in Solr-land.  The cost to enforce was
> significant (and still can be today), and often unneeded when building an
> index from a source known to have unique IDs already.
>
> -Yonik
>
> --
Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book:
http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com

Reply via email to