I guess there is no other way than reindex: - of course, not all fields are stored, that would have been too easy - it might (??) work if as Jan says I build a custom solr version with removed IntFields added etc, but going down this rabbithole sounds too risky, too much work for what, not sure it would eventually work, specially considering the last point: - I did not get any response to this, but my understanding now is that you cannot take a standalone solr core /data (without a _version_ field) and put that into solrcloud setup, as _version_ is needed.
xavier On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Jan Høydahl <j...@cominvent.com> wrote: > If all the fields in your current schema has stored=“true”, you can try to > export > the full index to an XML file which can then be imported into 6.1. > If some fields are not stored you will only be able to recover the > inverted index > representation of that data, which may not be enough to recreate the > original > data (or in some cases maybe it is enough). > > If you share a copy of your old schema.xml we may be able to help. > > -- > Jan Høydahl, search solution architect > Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com > > > 26. sep. 2016 kl. 20.39 skrev Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org>: > > > > On 9/26/2016 6:28 AM, xavi jmlucjav wrote: > >> Yes, I had to change some fields, basically to use TrieIntField etc > >> instead > >> of the old IntField. I was assuming by using the IndexUpgrader to > upgrade > >> the data to 6.1, the older IntField would work with the new > TrieIntField. > >> But I have tried loading the upgraded data into a standalone 6.1 and I > am > >> hitting the same issue, so this is not related to _version_ field (more > on > >> that below). Forget about solrcloud for now, having an old 3.6 index, > >> should it be possible to use IndexUpgrader and load it on 6.1? How would > >> one need to handle IntFields etc? > > > > The only option when you change the class on a field in your schema is > > to wipe the index and rebuild it. TrieIntField uses a completely > > different on-disk data format than IntField did. The two formats simply > > aren't compatible. This is not a bug, it's a fundamental fact of Lucene > > indexes. > > > > Lucene doesn't use a schema -- that's a Solr concept. IndexUpgrader is > > a Lucene program that doesn't know what kind of data each field > > contains, it just reaches down into the old index format, grabs the > > internal data in each field, and copies it to a new index using the new > > format. The internal data must still be consistent with the Lucene > > program for the index to work in a new version. When you're running > > Solr, it uses the schema to know how to read the index. > > > > In 5.x and 6.x, IntField does not exist, and attempting to read that > > data using TrieIntField will not work. > > > > The luceneMatchVersion setting in solrconfig.xml can cause certain > > components (tokenizers and filters mainly) to revert to old behavior in > > the previous major version. Version 6.x doesn't hold onto behavior from > > 3.x and 4.x -- it can only revert behavior back to 5.x versions. > > > > The luceneMatchVersion setting cannot bring back removed classes like > > IntField, and it does NOT affect the on-disk index format. > > > > Your particular situation will require a full reindex. It is not > > possible to upgrade an index using those old class types. > > > > Thanks, > > Shawn > > > >
