lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jack Krupansky <jack.krupan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Next Solr Release - 5.5.1 or 6.0 ?
Date Thu, 24 Mar 2016 19:09:21 GMT
Thanks, Erick, I had forgotten about that. I did find one short reference
to it in the doc: "Be sure to run the Lucene IndexUpgrader included with
Solr 4.10 if you might still have old 3x formatted segments in your index.
Alternatively: fully optimize your index with Solr 4.10 to make sure it
consists only of one up-to-date index segment."

See:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Major+Changes+from+Solr+4+to+Solr+5

Note to doc guys and committers: That section needs to be replaced with
"Major Changes form Solr 5 to Solr 6".

Also, that IU reference doesn't link to any doc, even the Lucene Javadoc:
https://lucene.apache.org/core/5_5_0/core/org/apache/lucene/index/IndexUpgrader.html

Feels like there should be some Solr doc as well. For example, can Solr be
running, or does it (each node if SolrCloud) need to be shut down first.
And note that it's needed for each collection. Presumably the collections
can be upgraded in parallel since they are distinct directories. It would
be nice to have a SolrIndexUpgrader to run in one shot and discover and
upgrade all Solr collections.

-- Jack Krupansky

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> There's always the IndexUpgrader, one could run the 5x version against
> a 4x index and have a 5x-compatible index that would then be readable
> by 6x OOB.
>
> A bit convoluted to be sure.
>
> Erick
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Yonik Seeley <yseeley@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Yonik Seeley <yseeley@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> I've been led to understand that 6.X (at least the Lucene part?) won't
> >>> be backwards compatible with 4.X data. 5.5 at least works fine with
> data
> >>> files from 4.7, for instance.
> >
> > It really doesn't seem like much changed at the lucene index-format
> > level from 5 to 6...
> > it makes one wonder how much work would be involved in allowing Lucene
> > 6 to directly read a newer 4.x index... maybe it's just down to
> > version strings in the index and not much else?
> >
> > -Yonik
>

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