Hi Aehem,

I decided that it is safer to always set the prioritySet field to 0 when
the docPriority is nullDocumentPriority.  I've committed another revision
for this, and described it in the CONNECTORS-1091 ticket.  I've also
included upgrade code that updates the prioritySet field automatically upon
initialization.

Karl




On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Karl Wright <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Aeham,
>
> I would be careful to set the "priorityset" field value to 0 only for
> documents that have state "G" and whose job is active.
>
> bq. I believe the priority should be set by
> ManifoldCF#
> resetAllDocumentPriorities but it's not, because
> JobManager#getNextNotYetProcessedReprioritizationDocuments returns no rows
> to update
>
> Where is resetAllDocumentPriorities being called from that you are seeing
> this?  When a job is started, documents that are put into the "G" state all
> have prioritySet times set to 0, so that the subsequent
> resetAllDocumentPriorities() call will assign priorities to them.  If there
> are other conditions where resetAllDocumentPriorities() is getting called
> after documents are put into the "G" state, where this ISN'T happening, I'd
> like to know about them.
>
> Thanks,
> Karl
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Aeham Abushwashi <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Karl,
>>
>> After applying the 1.7.2 revisions for CONNECTORS-1090, -1091, -1092 and
>> -1093 to my 1.6.1 branch, if I create a new crawl, then its documents get
>> picked up by the next scan; however, that doesn't happen for an existing
>> crawl. The docpriority for documents in the existing craw is still at
>> 1000000001.
>>
>> I believe the priority should be set by
>> ManifoldCF#resetAllDocumentPriorities but it's not, because
>> JobManager#getNextNotYetProcessedReprioritizationDocuments returns no rows
>> to update, which I think is due to the legacy job's docs having a
>> priorityset of NULL. Replacing the current priorityset condition in
>> JobManager#getNextNotYetProcessedReprioritizationDocuments with
>> (priorityset IS NULL OR priorityset<?) addresses this specific issue.
>> Is this a valid fix or do you see it introducing undesirable behaviour or
>> masking an issue elsewhere?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Aeham
>> ​
>>
>
>

Reply via email to