Re: Mixing simple and nested docs in same update?

[Jan Høydahl <ja...@cominvent.com>]

Thanks for the reply.

I see that the child doctransformer (https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/6_6/transforming-result-documents.html#TransformingResultDocuments-_child_-ChildDocTransformerFactory) has a childFilter= option which, when used, solves the issue/bug.
But such a childFilter does not exist for the BlockJoin QParsers.

Still not sure whether it is a bug or not...

--
Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com

> 31. jan. 2018 kl. 00:30 skrev Tomas Fernandez Lobbe <tf...@apple.com>:
> 
> I believe the problem is that:
> * BlockJoin queries do not know about your “types”, in the BlockJoin query world, everything that’s not a parent (matches the parentFilter) is a child.
> * All docs indexed before a parent are considered childs of that doc.
> That’s why in your first case it considers “friend” (not a parent, then a child) to be a child of the first parent it can find in the segment (mother). 
> In the second case, the “friend” doc would have no parent. No parent document matches the filter after it, so it’s not considered a match. 
> Maybe if you try your query with parentFilter=-type:child, this particular example works (I haven’t tried it)?
> 
> Note that when you send docs with childs to Solr, Solr will make sure the childs are indexed before the parent. Also note that there are some other open bugs related to child docs, and in particular, with mixing child docs with non-child docs, depending on which features you need this may be a problem.
> 
> Tomás
> 
>> On Jan 30, 2018, at 5:48 AM, Jan Høydahl <ja...@cominvent.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Pasting the GIST link :-) https://gist.github.com/45640fe3bad696d53ef8a0930a35d163 <https://gist.github.com/45640fe3bad696d53ef8a0930a35d163>
>> Anyone knows if this is expected behavior?
>> 
>> --
>> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
>> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
>> 
>>> 15. jan. 2018 kl. 14:08 skrev Jan Høydahl <ja...@cominvent.com>:
>>> 
>>> Radio silence…
>>> 
>>> Here is a GIST for easy reproduction. Is this by design?
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
>>> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
>>> 
>>>> 11. jan. 2018 kl. 00:42 skrev Jan Høydahl <ja...@cominvent.com>:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> We index several large nested documents. We found that querying the data behaves differently depending on how the documents are indexed.
>>>> 
>>>> To reproduce:
>>>> 
>>>> solr start
>>>> solr create -c nested
>>>> # Index one plain document, “friend" and a nested one, “mother” and “daughter”, in same request:
>>>> curl localhost:8983/solr/nested/update -d ‘
>>>> <add>
>>>> <doc>
>>>>  <field name="id">friend</field>
>>>>  <field name="type">other</field>
>>>> </doc>
>>>> <doc>
>>>>  <field name="id">mother</field>
>>>>  <field name="type">parent</field>
>>>>  <doc>
>>>>    <field name="id">daughter</field>
>>>>    <field name="type">child</field>
>>>>  </doc>
>>>> </doc>
>>>> </add>'
>>>> 
>>>> # Query for mother’s children using either child transformer or child query parser
>>>> curl "localhost:8983/solr/a/query?q=id:mother&fl=%2A%2C%5Bchild%20parentFilter%3Dtype%3Aparent%5D”
>>>> {
>>>> "responseHeader":{
>>>> "zkConnected":true,
>>>> "status":0,
>>>> "QTime":4,
>>>> "params":{
>>>>   "q":"id:mother",
>>>>   "fl":"*,[child parentFilter=type:parent]"}},
>>>> "response":{"numFound":1,"start":0,"docs":[
>>>>   {
>>>>     "id":"mother",
>>>>     "type":["parent"],
>>>>     "_version_":1589249812802306048,
>>>>     "type_str":["parent"],
>>>>     "_childDocuments_":[
>>>>     {
>>>>       "id":"friend",
>>>>       "type":["other"],
>>>>       "_version_":1589249812729954304,
>>>>       "type_str":["other"]},
>>>>     {
>>>>       "id":"daughter",
>>>>       "type":["child"],
>>>>       "_version_":1589249812802306048,
>>>>       "type_str":["child"]}]}]
>>>> }}
>>>> 
>>>> As you can see, the “friend” got included as a child of “mother”.
>>>> If you index the exact same request, putting “friend” after “mother” in the xml,
>>>> the query works as expected.
>>>> 
>>>> Inspecting the index, everything looks correct, and only “daughter” and “mother” have _root_=mother.
>>>> Is there a rule that you should start a new update request for each type of parent/child relationship
>>>> that you need to index, and not mix them in the same request?
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
>>>> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>