Shawn, 

This setup has big implication and I think that this problem is not describe in 
proper way either wiki or ref.. guide and how can be overcame (all the process 
that you describes).

+1 to find a way to upgrade without reindexing the data, I have not space 
enough to do an optimize of 3T and respective replicas (not to mention the time 
it would take). 

-- 
Yago Riveiro
Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig)


On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote:

> On 11/19/2013 4:10 PM, yriveiro wrote:
> > After the reading this link about DocValues and be pointed by Mark Miller to
> > raise the question on the mailing list, I have some questions about the
> > codec implementation note:
> > 
> > "Note that only the default implementation is supported by future version of
> > Lucene: if you try an alternative format, you may need to switch back to the
> > default and rewrite your index (e.g. forceMerge) before upgrading."
> > 
> > My questions is about how I can do this, either the wiki or the ref guide
> > don't explain how this process can be done.
> > 
> > I'm using the per-field DocValues formats, therefore I'm not using the
> > default implementation, and this in some way this scare me, because I have
> > in some way the possibility of make Solr updates compromised.
> > 
> 
> 
> The way I understand what you've been told is this:
> 
> Remove all docValuesFormat attributes from your schema. Restart/Reload 
> and optimize (forceMerge) your index. At this point you should be able 
> to upgrade Solr without any problems. Once you're upgraded, re-add the 
> docValuesFormat attributes and optimize again.
> 
> Mark and other experts - is this correct?
> 
> I do fully understand that your index is HUGE, so optimizing it is not 
> trivial.
> 
> IMHO upgrades should be possible with the disk-based format. Having very 
> large indexes is the primary reason that people choose the disk-based 
> format. These are the people who are least likely to be able to either 
> reindex or run an optimize.
> 
> Thanks,
> Shawn
> 
> 


Reply via email to