Yes indeed, the update chain had been activated... I commented it out
again and the problem vanished.
Good job, thanks Erick and Upayavira!
John
On 08/10/15 08:58, Upayavira wrote:
> Look for the DedupUpdateProcessor in an update chain.
>
> that is there, but commented out IIRC in the techproducts sample
> configs.
>
> Perhaps you uncommented it to use your own update processors, but didn't
> remove that component?
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015, at 07:38 AM, John Smith wrote:
>> Oh, I forgot Erick's mention of the logs: there's nothing unusual in
>> INFO level, the update request just gets mentioned. No exception. I
>> reran it with the DEBUG level, but most of the log was related to jetty.
>> Here's a line I noticed though:
>>
>> org.apache.solr.servlet.HttpSolrCall; Closing out SolrRequest:
>> {wt=json&commit=true&update.chain=dedupe}
>>
>> The update.chain parameter wasn't part of the original request, and
>> "dedupe" looks suspicious to me. Perhaps should I investigate further
>> there?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> John.
>>
>>
>> On 08/10/15 08:25, John Smith wrote:
>>> The ids are all different: they're unique numbers followed by a couple
>>> of keywords. I've made a test with a small collection of 10 documents to
>>> make sure I can manage them manually: all ids are confirmed as different.
>>>
>>> I also dumped the exact command, here's one example:
>>>
>>> <add><doc><field name="Id">101084385_Sebago_ sebago shoes</field><field
>>> name="Clicks" update="set">1</field><field name="Boost"
>>> update="set">1.8701925463775</field></doc></add>
>>>
>>> It's sent as the body of a POST request to
>>> http://127.0.0.1:8080/solr/ato_test/update?wt=json&commit=true, with a
>>> Content-Type: text/xml header. I still noted the consistent loss of
>>> another document with the update above.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/10/15 00:38, Upayavira wrote:
>>>> What ID are you using? Are you possibly using the same ID field for
>>>> both, so the second document you visit causes the first to be
>>>> overwritten?
>>>>
>>>> Upayavira
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015, at 06:38 PM, Erick Erickson wrote:
>>>>> This certainly should not be happening. I'd
>>>>> take a careful look at what you actually send.
>>>>> My _guess_ is that you're not sending the update
>>>>> command you think you are....
>>>>>
>>>>> As a test you could just curl (or use post.jar) to
>>>>> send these types of commands up individually.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps looking at the solr log would help too...
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Erick
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 6:32 AM, John Smith <solr-u...@remailme.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm bumping on the following problem with update XML messages. The idea
>>>>>> is to record the number of clicks for a document: each time, a message
>>>>>> is sent to .../update such as this one:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <add>
>>>>>> <doc>
>>>>>> <field name="Id">abc</field>
>>>>>> <field name="Clicks" update="set">1</field>
>>>>>> <field name="Boost" update="set">1.05</field>
>>>>>> </doc>
>>>>>> </add>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Clicks is an int field; Boost is a float field, it's updated to reflect
>>>>>> the change in popularity using a formula based on the number of clicks).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the moment in the dev environment, changes are committed immediately.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When a document is updated, the changes are indeed reflected in the
>>>>>> search results. If I click on the same document again, all goes well.
>>>>>> But when I click on an other document, the latter gets updated as
>>>>>> expected but the former is plainly deleted. It can no longer be found
>>>>>> and the admin core Overview page counts 1 document less. If I click on a
>>>>>> 3rd document, so goes the 2nd one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The schema is the default one amended to remove unneeded fields and add
>>>>>> new ones, nothing fancy. All fields are stored="true" and there's no
>>>>>> <copyField>. I've tried versions 5.2.1 & 5.3.1 in standalone mode, with
>>>>>> the same outcome. It looks like a bug to me but I might have overlooked
>>>>>> something? This is my first attempt at atomic updates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> John.
>>>>>>
