[jira] [Commented] (SOLR-14601) Using [child] and [subquery] DocTransformer / FieldList
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14601?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17147415#comment-17147415
]
Thomas Taroni commented on SOLR-14601:
--
*,[child fl='*'],customer:[subquery] -> Has worked as you described expected.
After a few more checks i could say the following:
if [child] will be react and processed in the same way as [child fl=*] that is
a possible expected behavior.
currently it heavy to predict what exactly it has for side effects if [child]
is picking up every field from fl=.
I am absolutely also at the case that is it a bad idea to exclude something
here from ChildDocTransformer. On the other side it looks like the duplicate
check in SubQueryAugmenterFactory could also be improved. Is a [subquery] is
already processed by [child] it should be not processed a second time in fl=.
Will check that firstly a little bit deeper. Thanks for answering.
> Using [child] and [subquery] DocTransformer / FieldList
> ---
>
> Key: SOLR-14601
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14601
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Bug
> Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public)
> Components: SearchComponents - other
>Affects Versions: master (9.0), 8.5.2
> Environment: Docker Container 8.5.2 from Docker Hub
> Already existing in 9.0.0
>Reporter: Thomas Taroni
>Priority: Major
>
> If you are using in the fl parameter something like that and
> luceneMatchVersion is higher or equals then 8.0.0 :
> fl=*,[child],customer:[subquery] or
> fl=*,customer:[subquery],[child]
> It ends Up in any case in the following error (BadRequest) inside the
> SubQueryAugmenterFactory:
> {code:java}
> // code placeholder
> if (conflictMap.containsKey(field)) {
> throw new SolrException(ErrorCode.BAD_REQUEST,"[subquery] name "+field+" is
> uplicated");
> } else {
> conflictMap.put(field, true);
> }
> {code}
> It looks like that the following Snippet in ChildDocTransformerFactory(8.5.2
> and 9.0.0) already have added that field to the context.
> {code:java}
> // code placeholder 8.5.2
> String childReturnFields = params.get("fl");
> SolrReturnFields childSolrReturnFields;
> if(childReturnFields != null) {
> childSolrReturnFields = new SolrReturnFields(childReturnFields, req);
> } else if(req.getSchema().getDefaultLuceneMatchVersion().major < 8) {
> // ensure backwards for versions prior to SOLR 8
> childSolrReturnFields = new SolrReturnFields();
> } else {
> childSolrReturnFields = new SolrReturnFields(req);
> }
> {code}
> {code:java}
> // code placeholder master 9.0.0
> String childReturnFields = params.get("fl");
> SolrReturnFields childSolrReturnFields;
> if (childReturnFields != null) {
> childSolrReturnFields = new SolrReturnFields(childReturnFields, req);
> } else {
> childSolrReturnFields = new SolrReturnFields(req);
> }
> {code}
> It looks like childReturnFields includes also the customer:[subquery],
> eventually is a good idea to remove fields from other AugmenterFactories like
> [shard] or [subquery] from the childReturnFields variable
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (SOLR-14601) Using [child] and [subquery] DocTransformer / FieldList
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14601?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17147215#comment-17147215
]
David Smiley commented on SOLR-14601:
-
> child has only three allowed parameters: parentFilter,childFilter and limit.
Not only those; it clearly supports "fl". It's in the docs and also in the code
snippet you shared.
I think in this case the solution is to be explicit in the "fl" inside child:
{code:java}
fl=*,[child fl=*],customer:[subquery]
{code}
Assuming that works, maybe it wasn't obvious enough and maybe it'd be nice if
Solr could somehow figure out this case automatically. I definitely don't like
the idea of ChildDocTransformer somehow expressly excluding certain other
transformers because it would preclude 3rd party plugins. Instead, I'd prefer
some sort of solution where a TransformerFactory could detect it's being
activated from child's field list and then choose to opt itself out, or instead
declare this preference.
> Using [child] and [subquery] DocTransformer / FieldList
> ---
>
> Key: SOLR-14601
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14601
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Bug
> Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public)
> Components: SearchComponents - other
>Affects Versions: master (9.0), 8.5.2
> Environment: Docker Container 8.5.2 from Docker Hub
> Already existing in 9.0.0
>Reporter: Thomas Taroni
>Priority: Major
>
> If you are using in the fl parameter something like that and
> luceneMatchVersion is higher or equals then 8.0.0 :
> fl=*,[child],customer:[subquery] or
> fl=*,customer:[subquery],[child]
> It ends Up in any case in the following error (BadRequest) inside the
> SubQueryAugmenterFactory:
> {code:java}
> // code placeholder
> if (conflictMap.containsKey(field)) {
> throw new SolrException(ErrorCode.BAD_REQUEST,"[subquery] name "+field+" is
> uplicated");
> } else {
> conflictMap.put(field, true);
> }
> {code}
> It looks like that the following Snippet in ChildDocTransformerFactory(8.5.2
> and 9.0.0) already have added that field to the context.
> {code:java}
> // code placeholder 8.5.2
> String childReturnFields = params.get("fl");
> SolrReturnFields childSolrReturnFields;
> if(childReturnFields != null) {
> childSolrReturnFields = new SolrReturnFields(childReturnFields, req);
> } else if(req.getSchema().getDefaultLuceneMatchVersion().major < 8) {
> // ensure backwards for versions prior to SOLR 8
> childSolrReturnFields = new SolrReturnFields();
> } else {
> childSolrReturnFields = new SolrReturnFields(req);
> }
> {code}
> {code:java}
> // code placeholder master 9.0.0
> String childReturnFields = params.get("fl");
> SolrReturnFields childSolrReturnFields;
> if (childReturnFields != null) {
> childSolrReturnFields = new SolrReturnFields(childReturnFields, req);
> } else {
> childSolrReturnFields = new SolrReturnFields(req);
> }
> {code}
> It looks like childReturnFields includes also the customer:[subquery],
> eventually is a good idea to remove fields from other AugmenterFactories like
> [shard] or [subquery] from the childReturnFields variable
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (SOLR-14601) Using [child] and [subquery] DocTransformer / FieldList
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14601?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17147117#comment-17147117
]
Mikhail Khludnev commented on SOLR-14601:
-
{quote}child has only three allowed parameters: parentFilter,childFilter and
limit.
{quote}
I've checked
[https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/8_5/transforming-result-documents.html#child-childdoctransformerfactory]
it says that there's fl in child. Has it been changed since it was documented?
[~dsmiley], wdyt?
> Using [child] and [subquery] DocTransformer / FieldList
> ---
>
> Key: SOLR-14601
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14601
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Bug
> Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public)
> Components: SearchComponents - other
>Affects Versions: master (9.0), 8.5.2
> Environment: Docker Container 8.5.2 from Docker Hub
> Already existing in 9.0.0
>Reporter: Thomas Taroni
>Priority: Major
>
> If you are using in the fl parameter something like that and
> luceneMatchVersion is higher or equals then 8.0.0 :
> fl=*,[child],customer:[subquery] or
> fl=*,customer:[subquery],[child]
> It ends Up in any case in the following error (BadRequest) inside the
> SubQueryAugmenterFactory:
> {code:java}
> // code placeholder
> if (conflictMap.containsKey(field)) {
> throw new SolrException(ErrorCode.BAD_REQUEST,"[subquery] name "+field+" is
> uplicated");
> } else {
> conflictMap.put(field, true);
> }
> {code}
> It looks like that the following Snippet in ChildDocTransformerFactory(8.5.2
> and 9.0.0) already have added that field to the context.
> {code:java}
> // code placeholder 8.5.2
> String childReturnFields = params.get("fl");
> SolrReturnFields childSolrReturnFields;
> if(childReturnFields != null) {
> childSolrReturnFields = new SolrReturnFields(childReturnFields, req);
> } else if(req.getSchema().getDefaultLuceneMatchVersion().major < 8) {
> // ensure backwards for versions prior to SOLR 8
> childSolrReturnFields = new SolrReturnFields();
> } else {
> childSolrReturnFields = new SolrReturnFields(req);
> }
> {code}
> {code:java}
> // code placeholder master 9.0.0
> String childReturnFields = params.get("fl");
> SolrReturnFields childSolrReturnFields;
> if (childReturnFields != null) {
> childSolrReturnFields = new SolrReturnFields(childReturnFields, req);
> } else {
> childSolrReturnFields = new SolrReturnFields(req);
> }
> {code}
> It looks like childReturnFields includes also the customer:[subquery],
> eventually is a good idea to remove fields from other AugmenterFactories like
> [shard] or [subquery] from the childReturnFields variable
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (SOLR-14601) Using [child] and [subquery] DocTransformer / FieldList
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14601?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17147101#comment-17147101
]
Thomas Taroni commented on SOLR-14601:
--
Have checked that, it looks not that this is working.
child has only three allowed parameters: parentFilter,childFilter and limit.
Have now investigated the Problem a bit more deeper. It's some kind of
recursion.
In ChildDocTransformerFactory the variable childReturnFields also includes the
other augmenter queries like customer:[subquery] because it picks the full "fl"
parameter. It calls then the SolrReturnFields with that. Inside the
SolrReturnFields its adding all the Augementers in a for loop for all the
fiels. It means if [child] is processed the customer:[subquery] is also
processed. If then the customer:[subquery] will be processed by the
SubQueryAugmenterFactory the field customer:[subquery] is already there. This
ends up then in the "is duplicate" Exception.
In my Opinion the ChildDocTransformerFactory should not process things like
[subquery] or [shard] or the SubQueryAugmenterFactory should not check that for
duplicates.
I dont really now the exactly reason why in ChildDocTransformerFactory the full
"fl" is processed and not only the "[child]" fields.
Have simpli forked the Project to:
[https://github.com/phoenix-systems/lucene-solr] and done a short hack, that
solves for us the Problem.
Commit:
[https://github.com/phoenix-systems/lucene-solr/commit/5ce0461ae5da6cf226f435d7e8837132fb045c9d]
But i think the better Solution is to change the ChildDocTransformerFactory.
> Using [child] and [subquery] DocTransformer / FieldList
> ---
>
> Key: SOLR-14601
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14601
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Bug
> Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public)
> Components: SearchComponents - other
>Affects Versions: master (9.0), 8.5.2
> Environment: Docker Container 8.5.2 from Docker Hub
> Already existing in 9.0.0
>Reporter: Thomas Taroni
>Priority: Major
>
> If you are using in the fl parameter something like that and
> luceneMatchVersion is higher or equals then 8.0.0 :
> fl=*,[child],customer:[subquery] or
> fl=*,customer:[subquery],[child]
> It ends Up in any case in the following error (BadRequest) inside the
> SubQueryAugmenterFactory:
> {code:java}
> // code placeholder
> if (conflictMap.containsKey(field)) {
> throw new SolrException(ErrorCode.BAD_REQUEST,"[subquery] name "+field+" is
> uplicated");
> } else {
> conflictMap.put(field, true);
> }
> {code}
> It looks like that the following Snippet in ChildDocTransformerFactory(8.5.2
> and 9.0.0) already have added that field to the context.
> {code:java}
> // code placeholder 8.5.2
> String childReturnFields = params.get("fl");
> SolrReturnFields childSolrReturnFields;
> if(childReturnFields != null) {
> childSolrReturnFields = new SolrReturnFields(childReturnFields, req);
> } else if(req.getSchema().getDefaultLuceneMatchVersion().major < 8) {
> // ensure backwards for versions prior to SOLR 8
> childSolrReturnFields = new SolrReturnFields();
> } else {
> childSolrReturnFields = new SolrReturnFields(req);
> }
> {code}
> {code:java}
> // code placeholder master 9.0.0
> String childReturnFields = params.get("fl");
> SolrReturnFields childSolrReturnFields;
> if (childReturnFields != null) {
> childSolrReturnFields = new SolrReturnFields(childReturnFields, req);
> } else {
> childSolrReturnFields = new SolrReturnFields(req);
> }
> {code}
> It looks like childReturnFields includes also the customer:[subquery],
> eventually is a good idea to remove fields from other AugmenterFactories like
> [shard] or [subquery] from the childReturnFields variable
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (SOLR-14601) Using [child] and [subquery] DocTransformer / FieldList
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14601?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17147076#comment-17147076
]
Mikhail Khludnev commented on SOLR-14601:
-
Hi, [~Thomas Taroni], is it possible to specify {{fl}} inside of {{[child
fl...}}] ?
> Using [child] and [subquery] DocTransformer / FieldList
> ---
>
> Key: SOLR-14601
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14601
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Bug
> Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public)
> Components: SearchComponents - other
>Affects Versions: master (9.0), 8.5.2
> Environment: Docker Container 8.5.2 from Docker Hub
> Already existing in 9.0.0
>Reporter: Thomas Taroni
>Priority: Major
>
> If you are using in the fl parameter something like that and
> luceneMatchVersion is higher or equals then 8.0.0 :
> fl=*,[child],customer:[subquery] or
> fl=*,customer:[subquery],[child]
> It ends Up in any case in the following error (BadRequest) inside the
> SubQueryAugmenterFactory:
> {code:java}
> // code placeholder
> if (conflictMap.containsKey(field)) {
> throw new SolrException(ErrorCode.BAD_REQUEST,"[subquery] name "+field+" is
> uplicated");
> } else {
> conflictMap.put(field, true);
> }
> {code}
> It looks like that the following Snippet in ChildDocTransformerFactory(8.5.2
> and 9.0.0) already have added that field to the context.
> {code:java}
> // code placeholder 8.5.2
> String childReturnFields = params.get("fl");
> SolrReturnFields childSolrReturnFields;
> if(childReturnFields != null) {
> childSolrReturnFields = new SolrReturnFields(childReturnFields, req);
> } else if(req.getSchema().getDefaultLuceneMatchVersion().major < 8) {
> // ensure backwards for versions prior to SOLR 8
> childSolrReturnFields = new SolrReturnFields();
> } else {
> childSolrReturnFields = new SolrReturnFields(req);
> }
> {code}
> {code:java}
> // code placeholder master 9.0.0
> String childReturnFields = params.get("fl");
> SolrReturnFields childSolrReturnFields;
> if (childReturnFields != null) {
> childSolrReturnFields = new SolrReturnFields(childReturnFields, req);
> } else {
> childSolrReturnFields = new SolrReturnFields(req);
> }
> {code}
> It looks like childReturnFields includes also the customer:[subquery],
> eventually is a good idea to remove fields from other AugmenterFactories like
> [shard] or [subquery] from the childReturnFields variable
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
