[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5374?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13818637#comment-13818637
]
Yonik Seeley commented on SOLR-5374:
------------------------------------
bq. should we change the commented logging to log.debug?
I only left them there (commented out) in case I needed to try and debug again
in the short term. They are not of the quality one would want for long term.
I'd rather they be deleted than changed to logs.
> Support user configured doc-centric versioning rules
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-5374
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5374
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Hoss Man
> Assignee: Hoss Man
> Fix For: 4.6, 5.0
>
> Attachments: SOLR-5374.patch, SOLR-5374.patch, SOLR-5374.patch,
> SOLR-5374.patch, SOLR-5374.patch, SOLR-5374.patch
>
>
> The existing optimistic concurrency features of Solr can be very handy for
> ensuring that you are only updating/replacing the version of the doc you
> think you are updating/replacing, w/o the risk of someone else
> adding/removing the doc in the mean time -- but I've recently encountered
> some situations where I really wanted to be able to let the client specify an
> arbitrary version, on a per document basis, (ie: generated by an external
> system, or perhaps a timestamp of when a file was last modified) and ensure
> that the corresponding document update was processed only if the "new"
> version is greater then the "old" version -- w/o needing to check exactly
> which version is currently in Solr. (ie: If a client wants to index version
> 101 of a doc, that update should fail if version 102 is already in the index,
> but succeed if the currently indexed version is 99 -- w/o the client needing
> to ask Solr what the current version)
> The idea Yonik brought up in SOLR-5298 (letting the client specify a
> {{\_new\_version\_}} that would be used by the existing optimistic
> concurrency code to control the assignment of the {{\_version\_}} field for
> documents) looked like a good direction to go -- but after digging into the
> way {{\_version\_}} is used internally I realized it requires a uniqueness
> constraint across all update commands, that would make it impossible to allow
> multiple independent documents to have the same {{\_version\_}}.
> So instead I've tackled the problem in a different way, using an
> UpdateProcessor that is configured with user defined field to track a
> "DocBasedVersion" and uses the RTG logic to figure out if the update is
> allowed.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
