Clearly, they are not broadcast, or if they are, they are filtered by the hash range before executing. If they were broadcast, this problem would not have happened.
Yes, we’ll delete-all and reindex at some point. This collection has 1.7 billion documents across 96 shards, so a full reindex is not an everyday occurrence. I’m trying to clean up the minor problem of 675k documents with dupes. wunder Walter Underwood wun...@wunderwood.org http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog) > On May 24, 2023, at 8:06 AM, Jan Høydahl <jan....@cominvent.com> wrote: > > I thought deletes were "broadcast" but probably for the composite-id router > it is not since we know for sure where it resides. > You say "shards were added" - how did you do that? > Sounds like you shold simply re-create your collection and re-index? > > Jan > >> 24. mai 2023 kl. 16:39 skrev Walter Underwood <wun...@wunderwood.org>: >> >> We have a messed-up index with documents on shards where they shouldn’t be. >> Content was indexed, shards were added, then everything was reindexed. So >> the new document with the same ID was put on a new shard, leaving the >> previous version on the old shard (where it doesn’t match the hash range). >> >> I’m trying to delete the old document by sending an update with delete-by-id >> and a shards parameter. It returns success, but the document isn’t deleted. >> >> Is the hash range being checked and overriding the shards param somehow? Any >> ideas on how to make this work? >> >> And yes, we won’t do that again. >> >> wunder >> Walter Underwood >> wun...@wunderwood.org >> http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog) >> >
