[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3793?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Yonik Seeley updated SOLR-3793:
-------------------------------
Attachment: SOLR-3793.patch
Here's a patch to fix the problem.
The issue was when UnInvertedField faceting cached big terms as filters, it
failed to set/use liveDocs. Later, an "fq" was used that retrieved the filter
from the cache and used that filter as liveDocs, bringing deleted docs back
from the dead.
> duplicate (deleted) documents included in result set when using field
> faceting with fq
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-3793
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3793
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 4.0-BETA
> Reporter: Hoss Man
> Assignee: Yonik Seeley
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 4.0
>
> Attachments: SOLR-3793.patch
>
>
> Günter Hipler reported on the solr-user mailing list that he was seeing
> inconsistencies in facet counts compared to the numFound when drilling down
> onto those facets (using "fq") - in particular: when adding an "fq" such as
> `fq={!term+f%3DnavNetwork}nebis`, the resulting numFound was higher then the
> number of docs reported by the facet constraint for nebis in the base request.
> I've been able to trivially reproduce this using the example data from Solr
> 4.0-BETA, trunk@r1381400, and branch_4x@r1381400 (details in comment to
> follow)
> Important things to note from Günter's email thread with his assessment of
> the problem...
> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-solr-user/201208.mbox/%3ccam_u7jfdpnrgfmwmntnachcdcjw4yb-rlbbvrw_wp_jdob_...@mail.gmail.com%3E
> bq. The behaviour is not consistent. Some of the facets provide the correct
> result, some not. What I can't say for sure: The behaviour was correct (if
> I'm not wrong) once the whole index was newly created. After running some
> updates I got these results.
> bq. I'm going to setup a new index with the Lucene 4.0 version from March (to
> be more exactly: it's version 4.0-2012-03-09_11-29-20) to see what are the
> results even in case of frequent updates ... the version deployed in march
> doesn't contain the error I now come across in Beta4.0
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
