[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-7247?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14367070#comment-14367070
]
Paolo Cappuccini edited comment on SOLR-7247 at 3/18/15 12:50 PM:
------------------------------------------------------------------
I can share my personal workaround.
I use deleteByquery to delete the document (because it's automatically routed
to proper shards)
I specify "shards" parameter for realtime get , so the realtimeget don't use
hashing logic to route but instead use "shards" specified.
>From user perspective both are very ugly wayes to route docuemts but I think
>that both behaviours could be the easier solution to be implemented internally
>just in case of routeField and make things transparent to user.
I think that the loss of performance is the price to pay if one want use custom
routeField.
Anyway and documentation should underline this, the user can still specify
"_route_" parameter if his application have some business rule chaining "id"
and "routeField" so RealTimeGet can still use "_route_" to calculate properly
the shard.
was (Author: cappuccini):
I can share my personal workaround.
I use deleteByquery to delete the document (because it's automatically routed
to proper shards)
I specify list of "shards" for realtime get , so the realtimeget don't use
hashing logic to route but use shards.
I think that both behaviours could be the easier solution to be implemented
internally just in case of routeField.
> sliceHash for compositeIdRouter is not coherent with routing
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-7247
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-7247
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 4.10.3
> Reporter: Paolo Cappuccini
> Assignee: Noble Paul
>
> in CompositeIdRouter the function sliceHash check routeField configured for
> collection.
> This make me to guess that intended behaviour is manage alternative field to
> id field to hash documents.
> But the signature of this method is very general ( can take id, doc or
> params) and it is used in different ways from different functionality.
> In my opinion it should have overloads instead of a weak internal logic. One
> overload with "doc" and "collection" and another one with "id" , "params" and
> "collections".
> In any case , if "\_route_" is not available by "params" , "collection"
> should be mandatory and in case of RouteField, also "doc" should be mandatory.
> This will break SplitIndex but it will save coherence of data.
> If i configure routeField i noticed that is broken the DeleteCommand (this
> pass to sliceHash only "id" and "params" ) and SolrIndexSplitter ( this pass
> only "id" )
> It should be forbidden to specify RouteField to compositeIdRouter or
> implements related functionality to make possible to hash documents based on
> RouteField.
> in case of DeleteCommand command the workaround is to specify "_route_" param
> in request but in case of Index Splitting is not possible any workaround.
> In this case it should be passed entire document during splitting ("doc"
> parameter") or build params with proper "\_route_" parameter.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
