[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5211?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16687514#comment-16687514 ]
David Smiley commented on SOLR-5211: ------------------------------------ bq. A rename could be done, what did you have in mind though? This is what I meant by \_nest\_root\_. This helps brand nested documents as such more consistently. You'd look a this field and might a clue what it's for. It seems IndexSchema.ROOT_FIELD_NAME is only used in a few places and wouldn't be hard to migrate to this new scheme. bq. Is there any scenario where differentiating between the new and old schema might be beneficial? For back-compat only. I took a look at the patch and I have some notes: * DirectUpdateHandler2.delete() should use cmd.getIndexedId() instead of direct field access. Those members on DeleteUpdateCommand ought to be private! * AddUpdateCommand: I see you refactored out a new addBlockId method so that the underlying logic can be invoked in now two places. However it calls getHashableId each time. That could be fixed by adding this as a parameter so that it's calculated up front. This method also adds the \_version\_ field to a document. This was being done only because child documents probably ought to have the same version as that of the root. (it needed a comment saying this!). That said; I think _use_ of the version on a child document isn't tested and might not work (hence SOLR-12638). I wonder what would happen if it were blank on a child doc? i.e. do we even need to do anything here? * I'm sympathetic to moving "getDocument" logic out of the command and into DirectUpdateHandler2. I think there is some entangling of responsibilities between the two that would probably become cleaner. Do or not do here as you have time for. * I appreciate the test of "legacy" behavior though I'm not sure it's worth committing this as it's kind of a burden going forward. If we go with the rename approach... then the legacy test becomes simpler. > updating parent as childless makes old children orphans > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: SOLR-5211 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5211 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: update > Affects Versions: 4.5, 6.0 > Reporter: Mikhail Khludnev > Assignee: Mikhail Khludnev > Priority: Major > Attachments: SOLR-5211.patch, SOLR-5211.patch, SOLR-5211.patch > > > if I have parent with children in the index, I can send update omitting > children. as a result old children become orphaned. > I suppose separate \_root_ fields makes much trouble. I propose to extend > notion of uniqueKey, and let it spans across blocks that makes updates > unambiguous. > WDYT? Do you like to see a test proves this issue? -- 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