[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11868?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16663225#comment-16663225
]
Erick Erickson commented on SOLR-11868:
---------------------------------------
Actually, I've long thought that allowing the <uniqueKey> to be something
besides "id" is more trouble than it's worth, so AFAIC, standardizing would be
fine.
> CloudSolrClient.setIdField is confusing, it's really the routing field.
> Should be deprecated.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-11868
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11868
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public)
> Affects Versions: 7.2
> Reporter: Erick Erickson
> Assignee: Erick Erickson
> Priority: Major
>
> IIUC idField has nothing to do with the <uniqueKey> field. It's really
> the field used to route documents. Agreed, this is often the "id"
> field, but still....
> In fact, over in UpdateReqeust.getRoutes(), it's passed as the "id"
> field to router.getTargetSlice() and just works, even though
> getTargetSlice is clearly designed to route on a field other than the
> <uniqueKey> if we didn't just pass null as the "route" param.
> The confusing bit is that if I have a route field defined for my
> collection and want to use CloudSolrClient I have to figure out that I
> need to use the setIdField method to use that field for routing.
>
> We should deprecate setIdField and refactor how this is used (i.e.
> getRoutes). Need to beef up tests too I suspect.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
