Thanks for the help on this issue. It appears to be related to a
multi-shard collection. I will either work with a single shard collection
or change the way the data is indexed so as to not need a join query.
Thanks
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 5:09 AM Mikhail Khludnev wrote:
> Hi there,
> If we a
Hi there,
If we are talking about SolrCloud. Up to 9.2 let to join "from" fully
replicated single shard collection "to" a many shards collection.
Starting from 9.3 Solr can join from many shards to many shards
collections, but route fields should be the fields, which are used in join
query.
Affini
Well, that's interesting. I was under the impression that the 'join'
required the 'joining' docs to be located on the same shard. I'd actually
experienced fewer matches with the join, until I made sure the docs to
'join to' were located on the same shard as the docs that were doing the
'joining'.
Here's the problem. Some weird clause occurs during query parsing.
"parsedquery_toString":"{!join from=image_id
to=image_record_id}+(+registry:registry.access.redhat.com
+repository:rhel6/rhel +published:T) +text:&rows=100
this +text: has no chance to match.
Unfortunately, Solr syntax is tric
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 11:46 AM Ron Haines wrote:
> After your migration, did your documents that should 'join' end up located
>
> on the same shard? I believe that is a requirement.
>
>
>
> Ron Haines
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 1:04 PM Charles Sanders
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Thanks again Mikh
Thanks for the reply Ron. You bring up a good question and something I
need to consider. However in the solr 7 system the records are not on the
same shard. They are spread across 2 shards.
Currently I'm working on a small test instance so I know exactly what data
I have. I will investigate th
After your migration, did your documents that should 'join' end up located
on the same shard? I believe that is a requirement.
Ron Haines
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 1:04 PM Charles Sanders wrote:
> Thanks again Mikhail for your reply. Yes there are absolutely matches for
> the subquery. This qu
Thanks again Mikhail for your reply. Yes there are absolutely matches for
the subquery. This query should return 1 result. I'm working off a small
test collection.
Here are the results of a debug.
{
"responseHeader":{
"zkConnected":true,
"status":0,
"QTime":3,
"params":{
ok. How is the query parsed (debugQuery=true)? Does the subquery have
matches?
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 7:36 PM Charles Sanders wrote:
> Thanks for the reply Mikhail. They are of type String. And yes, I
> believe I saw that about integers as well.
>
> Thanks,
> Charles
>
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2023
Thanks for the reply Mikhail. They are of type String. And yes, I
believe I saw that about integers as well.
Thanks,
Charles
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 12:29 PM Mikhail Khludnev wrote:
> Hello Charles
> What are image_id and image_record_id types? I roughly remember some
> mentions in the guide
Hello Charles
What are image_id and image_record_id types? I roughly remember some
mentions in the guide that integers might not be supported.
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 5:09 PM Charles Sanders wrote:
> Hello,
> I have an application using Solr 7.7.2. We are upgrading to Solr 9.2. I
> have a join
Hello,
I have an application using Solr 7.7.2. We are upgrading to Solr 9.2. I
have a join query that works fine in 7.7.2, but returns no results in 9.2,
It does not return an error, just no results.
Any idea as to what I should look at to resolve the issue? I don't know if
anything changed reg
12 matches
Mail list logo
