Thank you for the response
The use case I have in mind is trying to approximate incremental updates (as
are available in Sybase or MSSQL, to which I am more accustomed).
We are wanting to upgrade a large collection from Solr7.4 to Solr8.5. It turns
out that Solr8.5 cannot run against the
Are there any good workarounds/parameters we can use to fix this so it
doesn't have to be solved client side?
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 7:50 AM matthew sporleder
wrote:
> Is the normal/standard solution here to regex remove the '-'s and
> combine them into a single token?
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
Hey Craig,
I think this will be tricky to do with the current Rule-Based
Authorization support. As you pointed out in your initial post -
there are lots of ways to delete documents. The Rule-Based Auth code
doesn't inspect request bodies (AFAIK), so it's going to have trouble
differentiating
Is the normal/standard solution here to regex remove the '-'s and
combine them into a single token?
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:00 AM Erick Erickson wrote:
>
> This is a common point of confusion. There are two phases for creating a
> query,
> query _parsing_ first, then the analysis chain for
This is a common point of confusion. There are two phases for creating a query,
query _parsing_ first, then the analysis chain for the parsed result.
So what e-dismax sees in the two cases is:
Name_enUS:“high tech” -> two tokens, since there are two of them pf2 comes into
play.
Sure, raise a JIRA. Thanks for the update...
> On Nov 24, 2020, at 4:12 AM, Andreas Hubold
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I was able to work around the issue. I'm now using a custom
> UpdateRequestProcessor that removes undefined fields, so that I was able to
> remove the catch-all dynamic field
Fetch would work for my specific case (since I’m working with id’s there’s no
one to many), if I was able to restrict fetch’s target domain with a query. I
would first get all possible deleted ids, then use fetch to the items
collection. But then the current fetch implementation would find all
Hi,
I was able to work around the issue. I'm now using a custom
UpdateRequestProcessor that removes undefined fields, so that I was able to
remove the catch-all dynamic field "ignored" from my schema.. Of course, one
has to be careful to not remove fields that are used for nested documents in
the
