[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5211?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16738748#comment-16738748
]
David Smiley commented on SOLR-5211:
------------------------------------
Lucky: It's hard to say without looking at your URP, and I don't have the time
to review it.
Everyone: It seems we may have introduced a regression here. A Solr
delete-by-id will now only work for top level document IDs; it will not work on
child documents. I discovered this manually with some experimentation today. So
if you want to delete a child document, you'd have to issue a delete-by-query.
I'm looking at Hoss's first comment on this issue which related to extending
the notion of _root_ to be multiValued set of IDs of all ancestor IDs for each
document being added. That would indeed be a nice robust solution if we want to
fix it.
I have another perhaps crazy idea that seems intractable with all the
back-compat concerns for legacy child/nested docs but I'll throw it out there
for the heck of it; maybe it is approachable. In my mind, a re-thought nested
documents support would mean that _by default_ Solr would always be matching
root documents. That means a q=*:* would only return root documents, and a
delete-by-id would also only delete a root document. You'd have to _do
something explicit somehow_ to get different behavior. Furthermore the
uniqueKey would only be mandatory for the root document. Heresy you may say.
Any way, even if we can't agree on all of my crazy idea, maybe only partial, my
take-away message to this is that we don't need to think of the delete-by-id
limitation of root documents as a problem. It's unusual to want to do otherwise
(and error-prone if you leave grandchildren orphaned), and it's possible to do
this via delete-by-query.
> 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: David Smiley
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 8.0
>
> Attachments: SOLR-5211.patch, SOLR-5211.patch, SOLR-5211.patch,
> SOLR-5211.patch, SOLR-5211.patch
>
> Time Spent: 3h 20m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> 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
