I am not sure how this happened, it was a comment form another thread,
whatever i deleted it
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 5:48 AM David Smiley (Jira) <jira@apache.org> wrote:
>
> [
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15064?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17289656#comment-17289656
> ]
>
> David Smiley commented on SOLR-15064:
> -------------------------------------
>
> [~thomas.woeckinger], I'll respond to a comment you left on a linked issue
> that I think is meant to go here:
>
> bq. Is there always a route parameter present? Especially when using
> prefix routing or implicit router with document
> fields?
>
> No; it's quite optional and most users I think don't know about it (for
> indexing) let alone use it. It's not added internally.
>
> bq. But anyway, it would be great if the flag can be avoided at all. Just
> for understanding this means that RTG is not used if only a 'root' document
> is involved (having child documents is irrelevant)?
>
> I don't know what you mean.
>
>
>
>
> > Atomic/partial updates to nested docs should not assume _route_ param is
> the root ID
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Key: SOLR-15064
> > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15064
> > Project: Solr
> > Issue Type: Improvement
> > Environment: Updating to make a blocker for 9.0 because I
> _really_ want to remove the 9.0 hack RE {{\_route_}} param. I don't think
> I'll get around to updating the routing logic to look at a {{\_root_}}
> field, and it's nice knowing we have a work-around By using the {{/32!}}
> separator. Another work-around would be using {{router.field=\_root_}} if
> you _always_ pass in this field.
> > Reporter: David Smiley
> > Assignee: David Smiley
> > Priority: Blocker
> > Labels: NestedDocuments
> > Fix For: master (9.0)
> >
> >
> > In SOLR-14923, doing an atomic/partial update to a child doc requires
> indicating what the root doc ID is. Formerly Solr tried to figure this out
> automatically, but that had costly implications. SOLR-14923 adds a
> temporary hack that assumes that the \_route_ paramter *is* the root ID, if
> the \_root_ field is not on the doc. But that's not necessarily accurate,
> so it should be removed.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
> (v8.3.4#803005)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: issues-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
whatever i deleted it
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 5:48 AM David Smiley (Jira) <jira@apache.org> wrote:
>
> [
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15064?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17289656#comment-17289656
> ]
>
> David Smiley commented on SOLR-15064:
> -------------------------------------
>
> [~thomas.woeckinger], I'll respond to a comment you left on a linked issue
> that I think is meant to go here:
>
> bq. Is there always a route parameter present? Especially when using
> prefix routing or implicit router with document
> fields?
>
> No; it's quite optional and most users I think don't know about it (for
> indexing) let alone use it. It's not added internally.
>
> bq. But anyway, it would be great if the flag can be avoided at all. Just
> for understanding this means that RTG is not used if only a 'root' document
> is involved (having child documents is irrelevant)?
>
> I don't know what you mean.
>
>
>
>
> > Atomic/partial updates to nested docs should not assume _route_ param is
> the root ID
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Key: SOLR-15064
> > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15064
> > Project: Solr
> > Issue Type: Improvement
> > Environment: Updating to make a blocker for 9.0 because I
> _really_ want to remove the 9.0 hack RE {{\_route_}} param. I don't think
> I'll get around to updating the routing logic to look at a {{\_root_}}
> field, and it's nice knowing we have a work-around By using the {{/32!}}
> separator. Another work-around would be using {{router.field=\_root_}} if
> you _always_ pass in this field.
> > Reporter: David Smiley
> > Assignee: David Smiley
> > Priority: Blocker
> > Labels: NestedDocuments
> > Fix For: master (9.0)
> >
> >
> > In SOLR-14923, doing an atomic/partial update to a child doc requires
> indicating what the root doc ID is. Formerly Solr tried to figure this out
> automatically, but that had costly implications. SOLR-14923 adds a
> temporary hack that assumes that the \_route_ paramter *is* the root ID, if
> the \_root_ field is not on the doc. But that's not necessarily accurate,
> so it should be removed.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
> (v8.3.4#803005)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: issues-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>