[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5211?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16688130#comment-16688130
]
David Smiley commented on SOLR-5211:
------------------------------------
RE my pondering of the dubious necessity of adding \_version\_ to child docs:
SOLR-10114 -- delete-by-query is done in a way that assumes all documents have
a version.... at least this is true for _reordered_ DBQs according to that
issue. So it must stay.
BTW it won't be as simple as I suggested to rename \_root\_ since there are
lots of tests referencing it. We can certainly keep the name, but assume in
8.0 (when this gets committed) that \_root\_ is completely populated by any
code that needs to make this assumption by doing a version check.
> 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
