This ticket will shed some light: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14728
I think I'm planning using a different approach to distribute tha ACL's to all shards. Joel Bernstein http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/ On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 1:18 AM Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sounds like complex ACLs based on group memberships that use graph queries > ? that would require local ACL's... > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 5:56 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < > ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> This seems like an XY problem. Would it be possible to describe the >> original problem that led you to this solution (in the prototype)? Also, do >> you think folks at solr-users@ list would have more ideas related to >> this usecase and cross posting there would help? >> >> On Tue, 11 Aug, 2020, 1:43 am David Smiley, <dsmi...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Are you sure you need the docs in the same shard when maybe you could >>> assume a core exists on each node and then do a query-time join? >>> >>> ~ David Smiley >>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer >>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 2:34 PM Joel Bernstein <joels...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I have a situation where I'd like to have the standard compositeId >>>> router in place for a collection. But, I'd like certain documents (ACL >>>> documents) to be duplicated on each shard in the collection. To achieve the >>>> level of access control performance and scalability I'm looking for I need >>>> the ACL records to be in the same core as the main documents. >>>> >>>> I put together a prototype where the compositeId router accepted >>>> implicit routing parameters and it worked in my testing. Before I open a >>>> ticket suggesting this approach I wonder what other people thought the best >>>> approach would be to accomplish this goal. >>>> >>>> >>>> > > -- > http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) > http://www.the111shift.com (play) >
