I'm wondering if the commitWithin is causing issues. On 11 September 2015 at 18:52, Mr Havercamp <mrhaverc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestions. No, not using MERGEINDEXES nor > MapReduceIndexerTool. > > I've pasted the <add/> XML in case there is something broken there (cut > down for brevity, i.e. the "..."): > > <add overwrite="true" commitWithin="10000"><doc><field > name="handle_s">123456789/3</field><field name="title">Test > Submission</field><field name="title_sort">Test Submission</field><field > name="access">1</field><field name="parent_id">1</field><field > name="collection_s">Test Collection</field><field name="collection_fc">test > collection|||Test Collection</field><field name="collection_sort">Test > Collection</field><field name="dc.contributor.author_fc">young, > hayden|||Young, Hayden</field><field name="author">Young, > Hayden</field><field name="dc.contributor.author_sm">Young, > Hayden</field>...<field name="key">archive.item.1</field>...</doc></add> > > On 11 September 2015 at 18:06, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Are you by any chance using the MERGEINDEXES >> core admin call? Or using MapReduceIndexerTool? >> >> Neither of those delete duplicates.... >> >> This is a fundamental part of Solr though, so it's >> virtually certain that there's some innocent-seeming >> thing you're doing that's causing this... >> >> Best, >> Erick >> >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org> >> wrote: >> > On 9/11/2015 9:10 AM, Mr Havercamp wrote: >> >> fieldType def: >> >> >> >> <!-- The StrField type is not analyzed, but indexed/stored >> >> verbatim. --> >> >> <fieldType name="string" class="solr.StrField" >> >> sortMissingLast="true" /> >> >> >> >> It is not SolrCloud. >> > >> > As long as it's not a distributed index, I can't think of any problem >> > those field/type definitions might cause. Even if it were distributed >> > and you had the same document in multiple shards, duplicates should be >> > removed at query time, if each shard has the same schema as the others. >> > >> > I don't have any further ideas. There may be something wrong that I >> > haven't thought of. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Shawn >> > >> > >
