Thank you very much. The reason is what you said, we need to rebuild the index 
to recover(~very sad~)


The scenarios where the problem occurs are as follows:
 
 1. (7.7) the managed-schema of my configset contains _root_ field
 2. (7.7) create collection with my configset
 3.  (7.7) write doc
       id=1, name=alice, age=10
4. upgrade from 7.7 to 8.11
 5. (8.11) write doc
       id=1, name=alice2, age=11
6. (8.11) NumFound=2 when querying with debugQuery=true&q=id:1








At 2022-06-12 00:29:09, "戴晓彬" <xiaobin_...@foxmail.com> wrote:
>There is no _root_ field in the index data before the upgrade. The 8.x version 
>will judge whether it is the same record according to _root_, so the update 
>will become two after the upgrade.
>It is recommended to reindex after the upgrade.
>
>> 2022年6月12日 00:10,YangLiu <sll...@126.com> 写道:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you for your reply. 
>> The _root_ field is defined as follows:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> <fieldname="_root_"type="StrField"docValues="false"indexed="true"stored="false"/>
>> <fieldTypename="StrField"class="solr.StrField"sortMissingLast="true"docValues="true"/>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> At 2022-06-12 00:05:00, "戴晓彬" <xiaobin_...@foxmail.com> wrote:
>>> check the managed-schema to see if the _root_ field is defined. 
>>> 
>>>> 2022年6月11日 23:58,slly <sll...@126.com> 写道:
>>>> 
>>>> Hello everyone. 
>>>> We recently upgraded the online version from Solr 7 to 8.11, we found a 
>>>> very strange problem.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Before upgrade, we wrote a row of data, the id is uniqueKey.
>>>>    id=1, name=alice, age=10
>>>> After upgrade, we write three rows of data and id=2 is repeated.
>>>>    id=1, name=alice2, age=11
>>>>    id=2, name=nick, age=30
>>>>    id=2, name=nick2, age=31
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> We found NumFound=2 when querying with debugQuery=true&q=id:1, and 
>>>> NumFound=1 when querying with debugQuery=true&q=id:3
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> For historical data, the default 'overwrite' is false?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 

Reply via email to