Index rebuild necessary? / Jackrabbit Update

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Index rebuild necessary? / Jackrabbit Update

multi
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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Index rebuild necessary? / Jackrabbit Update

multi
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: [hidden email]
An: [hidden email]
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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Index rebuild necessary? / Jackrabbit Update

Julian Reschke
In reply to this post by multi
On 2017-07-18 13:29, [hidden email] 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Index rebuild necessary? / Jackrabbit Update

multi
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" <[hidden email]>
An: [hidden email], [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: Index rebuild necessary? / Jackrabbit Update
On 2017-07-18 13:29, [hidden email] 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Index rebuild necessary? / Jackrabbit Update

Julian Reschke
On 2017-07-21 11:35, [hidden email] 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
Loading...