No, we didn`t any change on the configuration storage, we only increases the SOLR memory in the JVM Options. > On Dec 21, 2015, at 7:21 PM, Bryan Hunt <ad...@binarytemple.co.uk> wrote: > > It would seem the order of recreation may be different to that of the > original ingest. Isn't sorting best performed on the application server side > in order to reduce demands on cluster RAM anyway? When you migrated to the > new cluster did you make any change to the storage configuration ? > > Original Message > From: Garrido > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 1:09 AM > To: Bryan Hunt > Cc: riak-users@lists.basho.com > Subject: Re: Riak Search Pagination > > Solr (2.x), >> On Dec 21, 2015, at 7:08 PM, Bryan Hunt <ad...@binarytemple.co.uk> wrote: >> >> In the context of Solr (2.x), legacy (1.4), or secondary indexes (2i) >> (1.x+)? >> >> >> Original Message >> From: Garrido >> Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 11:36 PM >> To: riak-users@lists.basho.com >> Subject: Riak Search Pagination >> >> Hello, >> >> Recently we migrated our Riak nodes to another network, so we backup the >> data and then regenerate the ring, all is well, but there is a strange >> behaviour in a riak search, for example if we execute a query using the >> riak_erlang_client, returns the objects in the order: >> >> A, B, C >> >> And then if we execute again the same query the result is: >> >> B, A, C, >> >> So, in other order, do you know what is causing this?, before to change our >> riak ring to another network, it was working perfectly. >> >> Thank you >> _______________________________________________ >> riak-users mailing list >> riak-users@lists.basho.com >> http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com >
_______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list riak-users@lists.basho.com http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
