Hi Alex, Can you let us know what do you mean by
*"timestamps" are truly atomic and not local clock-based." ?* *Thanks,* On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch <arafa...@gmail.com> wrote: > At the first glance, this sounds like a perfect match to > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Updating+Parts+of+Documents#UpdatingPartsofDocuments-DocumentCentricVersioningConstraints > > Just make sure your "timestamps" are truly atomic and not local > clock-based. The drift could cause interesting problems. > > Regards, > Alex. > ---- > Newsletter and resources for Solr beginners and intermediates: > http://www.solr-start.com/ > > > On 14 December 2015 at 12:17, Debraj Manna <subharaj.ma...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > We have a use case in which there are multiple clients writing > concurrently > > to solr. Each of the doc is having an 'timestamp' field which indicates > > when these docs were generated. > > > > We also have to ensure that any old doc doesn't overwrite any new doc in > > solr. So to achieve this we were thinking if we can make use of the > > _version field in solr doc and set the _version field equal to the > > 'timestamp' field that is present in each doc. > > > > Can someone let me know if the approach that we thought can be done? If > not > > can someone suggest some other approach of achieving the same with > minimum > > calls to solr? >
