Verified. The _version_ field is not being sent in update requests.
On October 12, 2023 4:29:41 PM MDT, Shawn Heisey
wrote:
>On 10/12/23 13:26, Chris Hostetter wrote:
>> i think you're missunderstanding rules of _version_ and how '0' is
>> handled.
>
>I'm about 90 percent sure the update reque
On 10/12/23 13:26, Chris Hostetter wrote:
i think you're missunderstanding rules of _version_ and how '0' is
handled.
I'm about 90 percent sure the update requests are not being sent with
the _version_ field populated. I am verifying this right as quickly as
I can.
Thanks,
Shawn
: Because the two requests are sent by different services and coordinating those
: requests woud likely be difficult, I think the simplest change that would fix
: the problem is to use optimistic concurrency, setting the field to 0 on the
: "create" request so the request fails if the document al
On 9/25/23 11:35, Shawn Heisey wrote:
I agree that the way they are operating now is completely wrong, and I
am surprised that it even worked. They got VERY lucky.
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/S/schroedinbug.html
cheers,
Dima
On 9/25/23 10:24, Dmitri Maziuk wrote:
(From your description, relying on the 4.x behaviour was a bad idea in
the first place: what if "create" request e.g. hit a bad sector on a
non-TLER drive and was stuck on i/o for 100x longer?)
I agree that the way they are operating now is completely wro
On 9/25/23 09:44, Walter Underwood wrote:
Updates and indexing used to be single-threaded. A while ago (maybe in Solr
6.x?), a bunch of locking was removed so that indexing could use multiple CPUs.
That is probably what you are seeing.
I don’t think Solr has ever guaranteed ordering for update
On 9/25/23 10:49, Shawn Heisey wrote:
On 9/25/23 08:53, Dmitri Maziuk wrote:
...
What I found is that when the "add" request comes first, 8.11.2 (at
least) will create a new -- useless -- document for it. I wish it
failed instead.
You might be able to achieve the behavior you want with the o
On 9/25/23 08:53, Dmitri Maziuk wrote:
On 9/25/23 08:24, Shawn Heisey wrote:
...
Solr 4.7 handles this as the customer wants, but Solr 9.1 doesn't.
This sounds like a race condition, are you sure it's Solr doing the
ordering and not e.g. the network stack?
I have seen the requests in the lo
Updates and indexing used to be single-threaded. A while ago (maybe in Solr
6.x?), a bunch of locking was removed so that indexing could use multiple CPUs.
That is probably what you are seeing.
I don’t think Solr has ever guaranteed ordering for updates, even if it
happened to work.
Maybe use
On 9/25/23 08:24, Shawn Heisey wrote:
...
Solr 4.7 handles this as the customer wants, but Solr 9.1 doesn't.
This sounds like a race condition, are you sure it's Solr doing the
ordering and not e.g. the network stack?
What I found is that when the "add" request comes first, 8.11.2 (at
least
10 matches
Mail list logo
