[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-12926?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16664022#comment-16664022
]
David Smiley commented on SOLR-12926:
-------------------------------------
[~ichattopadhyaya] I see you modified
{{org.apache.solr.handler.component.RealTimeGetComponent#getInputDocumentFromTlog}}
to have the AtomicLong parameter for SOLR-5944
Can you shed some light here?
> TransactionLog version consistency with doc's _version_
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-12926
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-12926
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public)
> Components: SolrCloud
> Reporter: David Smiley
> Priority: Major
>
> In the TransactionLog I see that there's some metadata for the document --
> it's ID and a version (a long). Should the \_version\_ in the document be
> the same as this metadata (which gets there via UpdateCommand.getVersion ?
> Sometimes the doc doesn't have a version field so lets assume it's 0 (same as
> UpdateCommand's default). I added an assertion on write() that checks they
> are consistent and I found one test that failed (metadata=0,
> doc=1615316737550450688)
> {{org.apache.solr.cloud.MigrateRouteKeyTest#multipleShardMigrateTest}}
> * So should they always be consistent? If so...
> * We should assert this (I'll attach a quick 'n dirty patch of this)
> * Document UpdateCommand.getVersion
> *
> org.apache.solr.handler.component.RealTimeGetComponent#getInputDocumentFromTlog
> is too complicated in taking AtomicLong as an "out" parameter. If the
> caller wants the version, they should get it themselves from the document
> like any normal field.
>
--
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
