Joins will work with shards as long as the docs you're joining from/to are in the shard. Why not go compositeId routing (either ID=uniqueKey!docId or router.field)? Is there no 'uniqueKey' which will distribute randomly? You may need to put the same ACL docs in all shards depending on your use case.
On 30 June 2017 at 12:57, mganeshs <mgane...@live.in> wrote: > Hi Erick, > > Initially I also thought of using Streaming for Joins. But looks like Joins > with Streaming is not for heavy QPS sort of queries and that's my use case. > Currently things are working fine with normal join for us as we have only > one shard. But in coming days number of documents to be indexed is going to > be increased drastically. So we need to split shards. The time I split > shards I can't use Joins. > > We thought of going with Implict routing for sharding. But if we go with > Implicit routing, all indexing will not be distributed and so one shard > could be getting more load which we don't want. > So we badly looking for default Join. > As I have posted in different questions in this forum itself and you too > have replied.... our joins are between real documents and it's ACL > documents. ACL document has multi value field whose value would be user or > groups. Why we want to keep ACL separately instead of keeping it in same > real document itself. It's because that our ACL can grow till 1L of users > or > even more. and for every change in ACL or its permission we don't want to > re-index the real document as well. > > Do you think is there any better alternative ? or the way we have kept ACLs > are wrong ? > > Regards, > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3. > nabble.com/Allow-Join-over-two-sharded-collection-tp4343443p4343582.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
