You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@jackrabbit.apache.org by Ze...@web.de on 2017/07/18 11:29:56 UTC

Index rebuild necessary? / Jackrabbit Update

Hi guys,

we have a scenario with an old Jackrabbit Version 2.2.5

Is it necessary to rebuild all the Lucene Indexes if we would like to upgrade to an up to date Version (at the moment 2.15.4) due the different Lucene Upgrades?

Is there a best practise / checklist for upgrading the Jackrabbit Version in view of existing Contents / Structures? Do we have to do some kind of data changes / preprocessing for the Upgrade Process?

We have different Workspaces and some other restrictions (nodenames > 150 Chars..), so it is not so easy to upgrade to OAK.


Thanks a lot, best regards.

Re: Index rebuild necessary? / Jackrabbit Update

Posted by Ze...@web.de.
Hi guys,

does nobody have Infos about this Upgradeprocess especially in view of Lucene Index Backwardcompatibility due Lucene Updates in the Jackrabbit Versions and Jcr Data Backwardcompatibility from an old 2.2.5 Version to an up-to-date Version like 2.15.4 (or is there a Version which fits better to our 2.2.5 ?)

Thanks a lot. Best regards 
 

Gesendet: Dienstag, 18. Juli 2017 um 13:29 Uhr
Von: ZeroCool86@web.de
An: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Betreff: Index rebuild necessary? / Jackrabbit Update
Hi guys,

we have a scenario with an old Jackrabbit Version 2.2.5

Is it necessary to rebuild all the Lucene Indexes if we would like to upgrade to an up to date Version (at the moment 2.15.4) due the different Lucene Upgrades?

Is there a best practise / checklist for upgrading the Jackrabbit Version in view of existing Contents / Structures? Do we have to do some kind of data changes / preprocessing for the Upgrade Process?

We have different Workspaces and some other restrictions (nodenames > 150 Chars..), so it is not so easy to upgrade to OAK.


Thanks a lot, best regards.

Re: Index rebuild necessary? / Jackrabbit Update

Posted by Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de>.
On 2017-07-21 11:35, ZeroCool86@web.de wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> thanks Julian for the reply and the hint to the unstable Version.
> 
> In view of OAK, i struggled with the hint in the Backward Compatibility Page about "Node Name Length Limit" and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-2644
> ...

Ack, you are right. What we fixed some time ago is the limit on the 
total length (path + name). Individual path components are still restricted.

> ...

Best regards, Julian

Re: Index rebuild necessary? / Jackrabbit Update

Posted by Ze...@web.de.
Hi,

thanks Julian for the reply and the hint to the unstable Version.

In view of OAK, i struggled with the hint in the Backward Compatibility Page about "Node Name Length Limit" and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-2644

The Index Question is still interesting for me, maybe someone else has an update experience in this way.

Best regards. 
 

Gesendet: Freitag, 21. Juli 2017 um 11:22 Uhr
Von: "Julian Reschke" <ju...@gmx.de>
An: users@jackrabbit.apache.org, ZeroCool86@web.de
Betreff: Re: Index rebuild necessary? / Jackrabbit Update
On 2017-07-18 13:29, ZeroCool86@web.de wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> we have a scenario with an old Jackrabbit Version 2.2.5
>
> Is it necessary to rebuild all the Lucene Indexes if we would like to upgrade to an up to date Version (at the moment 2.15.4) due the different Lucene Upgrades?

Can't help you with the indexing question but please note 2.15.4 is a
release from an unstable branch, so you should consider the latest 2.14
version.

> Is there a best practise / checklist for upgrading the Jackrabbit Version in view of existing Contents / Structures? Do we have to do some kind of data changes / preprocessing for the Upgrade Process?
>
> We have different Workspaces and some other restrictions (nodenames > 150 Chars..), so it is not so easy to upgrade to OAK.

Long node names are not a problem in Oak.

Best regards, Julian

Re: Index rebuild necessary? / Jackrabbit Update

Posted by Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de>.
On 2017-07-18 13:29, ZeroCool86@web.de wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> we have a scenario with an old Jackrabbit Version 2.2.5
> 
> Is it necessary to rebuild all the Lucene Indexes if we would like to upgrade to an up to date Version (at the moment 2.15.4) due the different Lucene Upgrades?

Can't help you with the indexing question but please note 2.15.4 is a 
release from an unstable branch, so you should consider the latest 2.14 
version.

> Is there a best practise / checklist for upgrading the Jackrabbit Version in view of existing Contents / Structures? Do we have to do some kind of data changes / preprocessing for the Upgrade Process?
> 
> We have different Workspaces and some other restrictions (nodenames > 150 Chars..), so it is not so easy to upgrade to OAK.

Long node names are not a problem in Oak.

Best regards, Julian