Sounds like complex ACLs based on group memberships that use graph queries ? that would require local ACL's...
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 5:56 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > This seems like an XY problem. Would it be possible to describe the > original problem that led you to this solution (in the prototype)? Also, do > you think folks at solr-users@ list would have more ideas related to this > usecase and cross posting there would help? > > On Tue, 11 Aug, 2020, 1:43 am David Smiley, <dsmi...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Are you sure you need the docs in the same shard when maybe you could >> assume a core exists on each node and then do a query-time join? >> >> ~ David Smiley >> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 2:34 PM Joel Bernstein <joels...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I have a situation where I'd like to have the standard compositeId >>> router in place for a collection. But, I'd like certain documents (ACL >>> documents) to be duplicated on each shard in the collection. To achieve the >>> level of access control performance and scalability I'm looking for I need >>> the ACL records to be in the same core as the main documents. >>> >>> I put together a prototype where the compositeId router accepted >>> implicit routing parameters and it worked in my testing. Before I open a >>> ticket suggesting this approach I wonder what other people thought the best >>> approach would be to accomplish this goal. >>> >>> >>> -- http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) http://www.the111shift.com (play)
