lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sujatha Arun <suja.a...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Document Level Security (SOLR-1872 ,SOLR,SOLR-1834)
Date Fri, 17 Jun 2011 05:06:25 GMT
Alexey,

Do you mean that we  have current Index as it is and have a separate core
which  has only the user-id ,product-id relation and at while querying ,do a
join between the two cores based on the user-id.


This would involve us to Index/delete the product  as and when the user
subscription for a product changes ,This would involve some amount of
latency if the Indexing (we have a queue system for Indexing across the
various instances) or deletion is delayed

IF we want to go ahead with this solution ,We currently are using solr 1.3
, so  is this functionality available as a patch for solr 1.3?Would it be
possible to  do with a separate Index  instead of a core ,then I can create
only one  Index common for all our instances and then use this instance to
do the join.

Thanks
Sujatha

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Alexey Serba <aserba@gmail.com> wrote:

> > So a search for a product once the user logs in and searches for only the
> > products that he has access to Will translate to something like this .
> ,the
> > product ids are obtained form the db  for a particular user and can run
> > into  n  number.
> >
> > <search term> &fq=product_id(100 10001  ......n number)
> >
> > but we are currently running into too many Boolean expansion error .We
> are
> > not able to tie the user also into roles as each user is mainly any one
> who
> > comes to site and purchases a product .
>
> I'm wondering if new trunk Solr join functionality can help here.
>
> * http://wiki.apache.org/solr/Join
>
> In theory you can index your products (product_id, ...) and
> user_id-product many-to-many relation (user_product_id, user_id) into
> signle/different cores and then do join, like
> f=search terms&fq={!join from=product_id to=user_product_id}user_id:10101
>
> But I haven't tried that, so I'm just speculating.
>

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