lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Collins <>
Subject Re: Solr7 org.apache.lucene.index.IndexUpgrader
Date Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:28:20 GMT
Leo, the general rule of thumb here is that the Solr index should *not* be
your main document store.  It is the index to your document store, but if
it needs to be re-indexed, you should use your document store as the place
to index from.

Your index will not have the full source data (unless ALL your fields have
stored=true, which suggests you are using it as a document store, see my
first point), so you should look to where you index your data from, that is
what should drive your new index.

On 27 November 2017 at 07:16, Leo Prince <>

> Hi Shawn,
> Thanks for the help.
> I hate to burst your bubble here ... but 4 million docs is pretty small for
> > a Solr index.  I have one index that's a hundred times larger, and there
> > are people with *billions* of documents in SolrCloud.
> >
> Sorry I missed a "0" there. It's actually 40 Millions, still according to
> you, it's still a small sized index. 😊😊
> You would need to keep the schema the same for the upgrade, except that you
> > would need to disable docValues on some of your fields to get rid of the
> > error you encountered.  You won't be able to take advantage of some of
> the
> > new capability in the new version unless you re-engineer your
> config/schema
> > and reindex.
> >
> Thanks.. Got your point.
> >
> > Upgrading an index, especially through three major versions, is generally
> > not recommended.  I always reindex when upgrading Solr, especially to a
> new
> > major version, because Solr evolves quickly.
> >
> What method do you actually follow to re-index upon Solr major upgrade..?
> I think I should do re-index since I am upgrading 3 major versions at once.
> What is best method to re-index..? At present, I am planning to re-index by
> SELECT from previous version (4.10.2) and then UPDATE into latest
> version(7.1.0). Any other better thoughts to re-index..?
> Thanks in advance,
> Leo Prince.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message