New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
index.gc_deletes=0s does not behave as expected #2166
Comments
We discovered the "index.gc_deletes" setting from trawling the forums (this should be documented on the Delete API page?). Although setting this to 0s helps, it appears VersionConflictEngineException still occur for a short period after the delete. Perhaps it would be better for delete to honour the gc_deletes setting only if passed a version number to delete? Or is there a better way to deal with the version conflict scenario mentioned above? |
Can you gist a recreation, I know when it might happen, just want something to work with. This is, btw, by design, but it might make sense to allow for your case as well... |
Will do. Looking at our case, what we think we'd like (from highest to lowest preference) is:
|
Here is a gist that recreates the issue: https://gist.github.com/3350884 Output for me is as below - if I uncomment the one second sleep, the VersionConflictEngineException does not occur.
|
Any updates on this issue? I seem to be experiencing similar issues with version 1.0 beta1 |
The new force version type allows you to override versions in Elasticsearch. http://www.elasticsearch.org/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/current/docs-index_.html#_version_types |
If a document is deleted, indexing a new document with the same id within approx 60 seconds of the delete fails with a VersionConflictEngineException.
The scenario where it's necessary to delete and immediately reindex a document is when external versioning is in place and we need to force indexing of an older version of a document - there doesn't appear to be any other way to do this besides deleting the "newer" version before indexing the "older".
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: