nutch-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "ASF GitHub Bot (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (NUTCH-2456) Allow to index pages/URLs not contained in CrawlDb
Date Wed, 08 Nov 2017 14:47:01 GMT


ASF GitHub Bot commented on NUTCH-2456:

sebastian-nagel commented on a change in pull request #240: NUTCH-2456 - Redirected documents
are not indexed

 File path: src/java/org/apache/nutch/indexer/
 @@ -256,20 +256,19 @@ public void reduce(Text key, Iterator<NutchWritable> values,
 Review comment:
   dbDatum is already used above (line 240 and following) when deleting gone pages and redirects.
Deletions are done if either fetchDatum or dbDatum match the status (gone resp. redirect).
Why not also relax these conditions so that dbDatum is optional? fetchDatum should exist,
otherwise every index job will send deletions for **all** 404s/redirects in CrawlDb including
those already deleted in the rounds before.

This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:

> Allow to index pages/URLs not contained in CrawlDb
> --------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: NUTCH-2456
>                 URL:
>             Project: Nutch
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: indexer
>    Affects Versions: 1.13
>            Reporter: Yossi Tamari
>            Priority: Critical
> If http.redirect.max is set to a positive value, the Fetcher will follow redirects, creating
a new CrawlDatum.
> If the redirected URL is fetched and parsed, during indexing for it we have a special
case: dbDatum is null. This means that in []
the document is not indexed, as it is assumed it only has inlinks (actually it has everything
but dbDatum).
> I'm not sure what the correct fix is here. It seems to me the condition should use AND
instead of OR anyway, but I may not understand the original intent. It is clear that it is
too strict as is.
> However, the code following that line assumes all 4 objects are not null, so a patch
would need to change more than just the condition.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message