Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
Thanks everyone!! This has been really helpful discussion and in short based on this we have taken the decision to stick to SOLR. On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Jack Krupansky wrote: > And neither project supports the Lucene faceting module, correct? > > And the ES web site says: "WARNING: Facets are deprecated and will be > removed in a future release. You are encouraged to migrate to aggregations > instead." > > That makes it more of an apples/oranges comparison. > > -- Jack Krupansky > > -Original Message- From: Toke Eskildsen > Sent: Monday, August 4, 2014 3:33 AM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch > > On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 08:31 +0200, Harald Kirsch wrote: > >> As for performance, I would expect that it is very hard to find one of >> the two technologies to be generally ahead. Except for plain blunders >> that may be lurking in the code, I would think the inner loops, the >> stuff that really burns CPU cycles, all happens in Lucene, which is the >> same for both. >> > > Faceting/Aggregation is implemented independently and with different > designs for Solr and Elasticsearch. I would be surprised if memory > overhead and performance were about the same for this functionality. > > - Toke Eskildsen, State and University Library, Denmark > > -- Regards, Salman Akram
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
And neither project supports the Lucene faceting module, correct? And the ES web site says: "WARNING: Facets are deprecated and will be removed in a future release. You are encouraged to migrate to aggregations instead." That makes it more of an apples/oranges comparison. -- Jack Krupansky -Original Message- From: Toke Eskildsen Sent: Monday, August 4, 2014 3:33 AM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 08:31 +0200, Harald Kirsch wrote: As for performance, I would expect that it is very hard to find one of the two technologies to be generally ahead. Except for plain blunders that may be lurking in the code, I would think the inner loops, the stuff that really burns CPU cycles, all happens in Lucene, which is the same for both. Faceting/Aggregation is implemented independently and with different designs for Solr and Elasticsearch. I would be surprised if memory overhead and performance were about the same for this functionality. - Toke Eskildsen, State and University Library, Denmark
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 2:43 AM, Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote: > That resource is rather superficial. I wouldn't make big decision based on it. Agree. It's also somewhat biased given the environment in which it grew. ES advocates were all over stuff like that, but Solr advocates were less vocal. Qualitatively: Solr facets and function queries were faster for ages (no idea if they still are or not...). Solr's faceting took up far less memory (that's probably changed too)... but no mention. Solr had efficient deep paging first, but most assume it was the other way around: https://github.com/elasticsearch/elasticsearch/issues/4940 Solr's "function queries" were far faster - I evaluated the mvel scripting language used by ES for this stuff... it was dog slow. Some something more concrete: Solr's faceting gives exact counts for the constraints returned, while ES still does not (it still does a naive "sum top N from each shard".) Some things in the table are just wrong: - Under "joins" for Solr, it says "It's not supported in distributed search.", yet ES has the exact same limitations... joined docs must be on the same shard (and provided that is true, joins are both supported in Solr and ES). - The comment for "Negative Boosting" is just wrong. It is supported. - "Online schema changes" is incorrect for Solr - it is supported. - "Structured Query DSL"... yes, we've had it forever. No it's not JSON. - "Advanced Faceting" is simply a "no" under solr and a "yes" under ES... this is incorrect. The tooltip says "metrics and bucketing", which solr has had forever (facet stats) that tons of people have used to build BI tools. Heliosearch adds even more of course. There are probably things wrong on the ES side too of course. But then at the bottom some of the things in "Thoughts..." are unfair and biasing... """As Matt Weber points out below, ElasticSearch was built to be distributed from the ground up, not tacked on as an 'afterthought' like it was with Solr. This is totally evident when examining the design and architecture of the 2 products, and also when browsing the source code.""" That's from a well known ES advocate of course. But software, just like arguments, should be evaluated in it's merits. -Yonik http://heliosearch.org - native code faceting, facet functions, sub-facets, off-heap data
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 08:31 +0200, Harald Kirsch wrote: > As for performance, I would expect that it is very hard to find one of > the two technologies to be generally ahead. Except for plain blunders > that may be lurking in the code, I would think the inner loops, the > stuff that really burns CPU cycles, all happens in Lucene, which is the > same for both. Faceting/Aggregation is implemented independently and with different designs for Solr and Elasticsearch. I would be surprised if memory overhead and performance were about the same for this functionality. - Toke Eskildsen, State and University Library, Denmark
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
That resource is rather superficial. I wouldn't make big decision based on it. As to performance, ElasticSearch stores the full submitted content as _source field. That allows it some extra tricks (like fake-nested documents), but also has a storage price. You can disable the _source field, but then some functionality goes away. Also, ES relies a lot on scripting to replace things that Solr has as built-in or as compiled classes. Obviously, scripting can be more flexible, but it is inherently slower. Though I think ES was trying to make this faster in recent releases. But yes, in general, the bulk of work happens in Lucene. Regards, Alex. Personal: http://www.outerthoughts.com/ and @arafalov Solr resources and newsletter: http://www.solr-start.com/ and @solrstart Solr popularizers community: https://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=6713853 On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Harald Kirsch wrote: > Except if I missed it, nobody yet pointed to > > http://solr-vs-elasticsearch.com/ > > which seems to be fairly up-to-date. > > As for performance, I would expect that it is very hard to find one of the > two technologies to be generally ahead. Except for plain blunders that may > be lurking in the code, I would think the inner loops, the stuff that really > burns CPU cycles, all happens in Lucene, which is the same for both. > > The differences are more likely to found in operations. > > Harald. > > > On 01.08.2014 08:34, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: >> >> If performance is the main reason, you can stick with Solr. Both Solr and >> ES have many knobs to turn for performance, it is impossible to give a >> direct and correct answer to the question which is faster. >> >> Otis >> -- >> Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics >> Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/ >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Salman Akram < >> salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote: >> >>> I did see that earlier. My main concern is search >>> performance/scalability/throughput which unfortunately that article >>> didn't >>> address. Any benchmarks or comments about that? >>> >>> We are already using SOLR but there has been a push to check >>> elasticsearch. >>> All the benchmarks I have seen are at least few years old. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Otis Gospodnetic < >>> otis.gospodne...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> Not super fresh, but more recent than the 2 links you sent: >>> >>> http://blog.sematext.com/2012/08/23/solr-vs-elasticsearch-part-1-overview/ Otis -- Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/ On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Salman Akram < salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote: > This is quite an old discussion. Wanted to check any new comparisons after > > SOLR 4 especially with regards to performance/scalability/throughput? > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Peter wrote: > >> Have a look: >> >> >> > >>> >>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2271600/elasticsearch-sphinx-lucene-solr-xapian-which-fits-for-which-usage >> >> >> http://karussell.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/elasticsearch-vs-solr-lucene/ >> >> >> Regards, >> Peter. >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> > >>> >>> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-vs-ElasticSearch-tp3009181p3200492.html >> >> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > > > > -- > Regards, > > Salman Akram > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> >>> Salman Akram >>> >> >
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
Except if I missed it, nobody yet pointed to http://solr-vs-elasticsearch.com/ which seems to be fairly up-to-date. As for performance, I would expect that it is very hard to find one of the two technologies to be generally ahead. Except for plain blunders that may be lurking in the code, I would think the inner loops, the stuff that really burns CPU cycles, all happens in Lucene, which is the same for both. The differences are more likely to found in operations. Harald. On 01.08.2014 08:34, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: If performance is the main reason, you can stick with Solr. Both Solr and ES have many knobs to turn for performance, it is impossible to give a direct and correct answer to the question which is faster. Otis -- Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/ On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Salman Akram < salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote: I did see that earlier. My main concern is search performance/scalability/throughput which unfortunately that article didn't address. Any benchmarks or comments about that? We are already using SOLR but there has been a push to check elasticsearch. All the benchmarks I have seen are at least few years old. On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Otis Gospodnetic < otis.gospodne...@gmail.com wrote: Not super fresh, but more recent than the 2 links you sent: http://blog.sematext.com/2012/08/23/solr-vs-elasticsearch-part-1-overview/ Otis -- Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/ On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Salman Akram < salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote: This is quite an old discussion. Wanted to check any new comparisons after SOLR 4 especially with regards to performance/scalability/throughput? On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Peter wrote: Have a look: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2271600/elasticsearch-sphinx-lucene-solr-xapian-which-fits-for-which-usage http://karussell.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/elasticsearch-vs-solr-lucene/ Regards, Peter. -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-vs-ElasticSearch-tp3009181p3200492.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Regards, Salman Akram -- Regards, Salman Akram
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
Elasticsearch and Solr are both based on Lucene, so a sizeable fraction of performance will be similar if not identical. IOW, they are both using the same "search engine" under the hood. Sure, the right "tires", "transmission", and "body" can make a big difference in performance as well, but the engine is the point to focus on. Back when ES first came out, Solr was not so easily scalable and ES was "cool" because it had a cleaner JSON-based REST API. But now, Solr has SolrCloud and supports JSON for both input documents and query results, so... the differences are a lot more muted. I would say that ES does still have a cleaner REST API, but I'm not sure how much that really matters for most use cases. Clearly it matters to some people, but I suspect a lot of people are gravitating to ES solely because they hear people say "You've got to check out Elasticsearch!" rather than for some clear and obvious benefit in terms of features, performance, and scalability. -- Jack Krupansky -Original Message- From: Salman Akram Sent: Friday, August 1, 2014 1:35 AM To: Solr Group Subject: Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch I did see that earlier. My main concern is search performance/scalability/throughput which unfortunately that article didn't address. Any benchmarks or comments about that? We are already using SOLR but there has been a push to check elasticsearch. All the benchmarks I have seen are at least few years old. On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: Not super fresh, but more recent than the 2 links you sent: http://blog.sematext.com/2012/08/23/solr-vs-elasticsearch-part-1-overview/ Otis -- Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/ On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Salman Akram < salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote: > This is quite an old discussion. Wanted to check any new comparisons after > SOLR 4 especially with regards to performance/scalability/throughput? > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Peter wrote: > > > Have a look: > > > > > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2271600/elasticsearch-sphinx-lucene-solr-xapian-which-fits-for-which-usage > > > > http://karussell.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/elasticsearch-vs-solr-lucene/ > > > > Regards, > > Peter. > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > > > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-vs-ElasticSearch-tp3009181p3200492.html > > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > > > -- > Regards, > > Salman Akram > -- Regards, Salman Akram
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
On 01/08/2014 09:53, Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote: Thank you Charlie, very informative even if non-scientific. About the aggregations, are they very different from: http://heliosearch.org/solr-facet-functions/ (obviously not yet production ready)? They're the same sort of thing. The ES significant terms aggregation is particularly cool for spotting anomalies (look up Mark Harwood's blogs and presentations on the subject). I think the new analytic capabilities in Solr, Heliosearch and ES have some awesome potential. Cheers Charlie Regards, Alex. Personal: http://www.outerthoughts.com/ and @arafalov Solr resources and newsletter: http://www.solr-start.com/ and @solrstart Solr popularizers community: https://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=6713853 On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Charlie Hull wrote: On 01/08/2014 06:43, Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote: Maybe Charlie Hull can answer that: https://twitter.com/FlaxSearch/status/494859596117602304 . He seems to think that - at least in some cases - Solr is faster. I'll try to expand on the tweet. Firstly, this is a totally unscientific comparison - we'd like to have time to develop a proper public demonstration of some of the performance differences we've found, which hopefully we will soon...so this is far more anecdotal than statistical! Our eventual intention is to publicise any differences so the wider community can tell us if we've done something wrong, or maybe improve one or both engines. Don't get me wrong, we *like* the fact there are two cool search server projects built on Lucene! I can think of three recent projects where we've compared the two - we wanted to be sure we were using the best fit for our clients: 1. a search over 40-50 million news stories with relatively complex filtering requirements - Although ES promised more granular filtering it was a lot slower to do it. We chose Solr. 2. a pretty standard intranet search over a few million items that might require some clever visualisation in a future phase. No real difference in speed, we chose ES. 3. a search over 700k items in the recruitment space with some geolocation filtering - ES seemed to be faster at indexing, but Solr was a lot faster for searching, and probably will be equivalent at indexing once we do some tuning. We chose Solr. Others have told me that if your documents are rich, choose Solr: if however you have a large number of more simple documents, choose ES as the scaling is less painful. If you like old-school XML config, choose Solr: if you're a bearded hipster running a startup in Shoreditch choose ES. The aggregations in ES are *way* cool. YMMV, of course. The *only* sensible way to choose is to try both with your data and requirements. Benchmarks are all very well, but they don't necessarily apply to your situation. Cheers Charlie I am also doing a talk and a book on Solr vs. ElasticSearch, but I am not really planning to address those issues either, only the feature comparisons. Regards, Alex. Personal: http://www.outerthoughts.com/ and @arafalov Solr resources and newsletter: http://www.solr-start.com/ and @solrstart Solr popularizers community: https://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=6713853 On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Salman Akram wrote: I did see that earlier. My main concern is search performance/scalability/throughput which unfortunately that article didn't address. Any benchmarks or comments about that? We are already using SOLR but there has been a push to check elasticsearch. All the benchmarks I have seen are at least few years old. On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: Not super fresh, but more recent than the 2 links you sent: http://blog.sematext.com/2012/08/23/solr-vs-elasticsearch-part-1-overview/ Otis -- Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/ On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Salman Akram < salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote: This is quite an old discussion. Wanted to check any new comparisons after SOLR 4 especially with regards to performance/scalability/throughput? On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Peter wrote: Have a look: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2271600/elasticsearch-sphinx-lucene-solr-xapian-which-fits-for-which-usage http://karussell.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/elasticsearch-vs-solr-lucene/ Regards, Peter. -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-vs-ElasticSearch-tp3009181p3200492.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Regards, Salman Akram -- Regards, Salman Akram -- Charlie Hull Flax - Open Source Enterprise Search tel/fax: +44 (0)8700 118334 mobile: +44 (0)7767 825828 web: www.flax.co.uk -- Charlie Hull Flax - Open Source Enterprise Search tel/fax: +44 (0)8700 118334 mobile: +44 (0)7767 825828 web: www.flax.co.uk
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
Thank you Charlie, very informative even if non-scientific. About the aggregations, are they very different from: http://heliosearch.org/solr-facet-functions/ (obviously not yet production ready)? Regards, Alex. Personal: http://www.outerthoughts.com/ and @arafalov Solr resources and newsletter: http://www.solr-start.com/ and @solrstart Solr popularizers community: https://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=6713853 On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Charlie Hull wrote: > On 01/08/2014 06:43, Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote: >> >> Maybe Charlie Hull can answer that: >> https://twitter.com/FlaxSearch/status/494859596117602304 . He seems to >> think that - at least in some cases - Solr is faster. > > > I'll try to expand on the tweet. > > Firstly, this is a totally unscientific comparison - we'd like to have time > to develop a proper public demonstration of some of the performance > differences we've found, which hopefully we will soon...so this is far more > anecdotal than statistical! Our eventual intention is to publicise any > differences so the wider community can tell us if we've done something > wrong, or maybe improve one or both engines. Don't get me wrong, we *like* > the fact there are two cool search server projects built on Lucene! > > I can think of three recent projects where we've compared the two - we > wanted to be sure we were using the best fit for our clients: > 1. a search over 40-50 million news stories with relatively complex > filtering requirements - Although ES promised more granular filtering it was > a lot slower to do it. We chose Solr. > 2. a pretty standard intranet search over a few million items that might > require some clever visualisation in a future phase. No real difference in > speed, we chose ES. > 3. a search over 700k items in the recruitment space with some geolocation > filtering - ES seemed to be faster at indexing, but Solr was a lot faster > for searching, and probably will be equivalent at indexing once we do some > tuning. We chose Solr. > > Others have told me that if your documents are rich, choose Solr: if however > you have a large number of more simple documents, choose ES as the scaling > is less painful. If you like old-school XML config, choose Solr: if you're a > bearded hipster running a startup in Shoreditch choose ES. The aggregations > in ES are *way* cool. > > YMMV, of course. The *only* sensible way to choose is to try both with your > data and requirements. Benchmarks are all very well, but they don't > necessarily apply to your situation. > > Cheers > > Charlie > > >> >> I am also doing a talk and a book on Solr vs. ElasticSearch, but I am >> not really planning to address those issues either, only the feature >> comparisons. >> >> Regards, >> Alex. >> Personal: http://www.outerthoughts.com/ and @arafalov >> Solr resources and newsletter: http://www.solr-start.com/ and @solrstart >> Solr popularizers community: https://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=6713853 >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Salman Akram >> wrote: >>> >>> I did see that earlier. My main concern is search >>> performance/scalability/throughput which unfortunately that article >>> didn't >>> address. Any benchmarks or comments about that? >>> >>> We are already using SOLR but there has been a push to check >>> elasticsearch. >>> All the benchmarks I have seen are at least few years old. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Otis Gospodnetic >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Not super fresh, but more recent than the 2 links you sent: http://blog.sematext.com/2012/08/23/solr-vs-elasticsearch-part-1-overview/ Otis -- Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/ On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Salman Akram < salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote: > This is quite an old discussion. Wanted to check any new comparisons after > > SOLR 4 especially with regards to performance/scalability/throughput? > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Peter wrote: > >> Have a look: >> >> >> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2271600/elasticsearch-sphinx-lucene-solr-xapian-which-fits-for-which-usage >> >> >> http://karussell.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/elasticsearch-vs-solr-lucene/ >> >> >> Regards, >> Peter. >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-vs-ElasticSearch-tp3009181p3200492.html >> >> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > > > > -- > Regards, > > Salman Akram > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> >>> Salman Akram > > > > -- > Charlie Hull > Flax - Open Source Enterprise Search > > tel/fax: +44 (0)8700 118334 > mobile: +44 (0)7767 825828 > web: www.flax.co.uk
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
On 01/08/2014 06:43, Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote: Maybe Charlie Hull can answer that: https://twitter.com/FlaxSearch/status/494859596117602304 . He seems to think that - at least in some cases - Solr is faster. I'll try to expand on the tweet. Firstly, this is a totally unscientific comparison - we'd like to have time to develop a proper public demonstration of some of the performance differences we've found, which hopefully we will soon...so this is far more anecdotal than statistical! Our eventual intention is to publicise any differences so the wider community can tell us if we've done something wrong, or maybe improve one or both engines. Don't get me wrong, we *like* the fact there are two cool search server projects built on Lucene! I can think of three recent projects where we've compared the two - we wanted to be sure we were using the best fit for our clients: 1. a search over 40-50 million news stories with relatively complex filtering requirements - Although ES promised more granular filtering it was a lot slower to do it. We chose Solr. 2. a pretty standard intranet search over a few million items that might require some clever visualisation in a future phase. No real difference in speed, we chose ES. 3. a search over 700k items in the recruitment space with some geolocation filtering - ES seemed to be faster at indexing, but Solr was a lot faster for searching, and probably will be equivalent at indexing once we do some tuning. We chose Solr. Others have told me that if your documents are rich, choose Solr: if however you have a large number of more simple documents, choose ES as the scaling is less painful. If you like old-school XML config, choose Solr: if you're a bearded hipster running a startup in Shoreditch choose ES. The aggregations in ES are *way* cool. YMMV, of course. The *only* sensible way to choose is to try both with your data and requirements. Benchmarks are all very well, but they don't necessarily apply to your situation. Cheers Charlie I am also doing a talk and a book on Solr vs. ElasticSearch, but I am not really planning to address those issues either, only the feature comparisons. Regards, Alex. Personal: http://www.outerthoughts.com/ and @arafalov Solr resources and newsletter: http://www.solr-start.com/ and @solrstart Solr popularizers community: https://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=6713853 On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Salman Akram wrote: I did see that earlier. My main concern is search performance/scalability/throughput which unfortunately that article didn't address. Any benchmarks or comments about that? We are already using SOLR but there has been a push to check elasticsearch. All the benchmarks I have seen are at least few years old. On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: Not super fresh, but more recent than the 2 links you sent: http://blog.sematext.com/2012/08/23/solr-vs-elasticsearch-part-1-overview/ Otis -- Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/ On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Salman Akram < salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote: This is quite an old discussion. Wanted to check any new comparisons after SOLR 4 especially with regards to performance/scalability/throughput? On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Peter wrote: Have a look: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2271600/elasticsearch-sphinx-lucene-solr-xapian-which-fits-for-which-usage http://karussell.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/elasticsearch-vs-solr-lucene/ Regards, Peter. -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-vs-ElasticSearch-tp3009181p3200492.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Regards, Salman Akram -- Regards, Salman Akram -- Charlie Hull Flax - Open Source Enterprise Search tel/fax: +44 (0)8700 118334 mobile: +44 (0)7767 825828 web: www.flax.co.uk
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
If performance is the main reason, you can stick with Solr. Both Solr and ES have many knobs to turn for performance, it is impossible to give a direct and correct answer to the question which is faster. Otis -- Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/ On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Salman Akram < salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote: > I did see that earlier. My main concern is search > performance/scalability/throughput which unfortunately that article didn't > address. Any benchmarks or comments about that? > > We are already using SOLR but there has been a push to check elasticsearch. > All the benchmarks I have seen are at least few years old. > > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Otis Gospodnetic < > otis.gospodne...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > Not super fresh, but more recent than the 2 links you sent: > > > http://blog.sematext.com/2012/08/23/solr-vs-elasticsearch-part-1-overview/ > > > > Otis > > -- > > Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics > > Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/ > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Salman Akram < > > salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote: > > > > > This is quite an old discussion. Wanted to check any new comparisons > > after > > > SOLR 4 especially with regards to performance/scalability/throughput? > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Peter wrote: > > > > > > > Have a look: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2271600/elasticsearch-sphinx-lucene-solr-xapian-which-fits-for-which-usage > > > > > > > > > > http://karussell.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/elasticsearch-vs-solr-lucene/ > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Peter. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > View this message in context: > > > > > > > > > > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-vs-ElasticSearch-tp3009181p3200492.html > > > > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > > > > Salman Akram > > > > > > > > > -- > Regards, > > Salman Akram >
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
Maybe Charlie Hull can answer that: https://twitter.com/FlaxSearch/status/494859596117602304 . He seems to think that - at least in some cases - Solr is faster. I am also doing a talk and a book on Solr vs. ElasticSearch, but I am not really planning to address those issues either, only the feature comparisons. Regards, Alex. Personal: http://www.outerthoughts.com/ and @arafalov Solr resources and newsletter: http://www.solr-start.com/ and @solrstart Solr popularizers community: https://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=6713853 On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Salman Akram wrote: > I did see that earlier. My main concern is search > performance/scalability/throughput which unfortunately that article didn't > address. Any benchmarks or comments about that? > > We are already using SOLR but there has been a push to check elasticsearch. > All the benchmarks I have seen are at least few years old. > > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Otis Gospodnetic > wrote: > >> Not super fresh, but more recent than the 2 links you sent: >> http://blog.sematext.com/2012/08/23/solr-vs-elasticsearch-part-1-overview/ >> >> Otis >> -- >> Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics >> Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/ >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Salman Akram < >> salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote: >> >> > This is quite an old discussion. Wanted to check any new comparisons >> after >> > SOLR 4 especially with regards to performance/scalability/throughput? >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Peter wrote: >> > >> > > Have a look: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2271600/elasticsearch-sphinx-lucene-solr-xapian-which-fits-for-which-usage >> > > >> > > >> http://karussell.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/elasticsearch-vs-solr-lucene/ >> > > >> > > Regards, >> > > Peter. >> > > >> > > -- >> > > View this message in context: >> > > >> > >> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-vs-ElasticSearch-tp3009181p3200492.html >> > > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Regards, >> > >> > Salman Akram >> > >> > > > > -- > Regards, > > Salman Akram
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
I did see that earlier. My main concern is search performance/scalability/throughput which unfortunately that article didn't address. Any benchmarks or comments about that? We are already using SOLR but there has been a push to check elasticsearch. All the benchmarks I have seen are at least few years old. On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: > Not super fresh, but more recent than the 2 links you sent: > http://blog.sematext.com/2012/08/23/solr-vs-elasticsearch-part-1-overview/ > > Otis > -- > Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics > Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/ > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Salman Akram < > salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote: > > > This is quite an old discussion. Wanted to check any new comparisons > after > > SOLR 4 especially with regards to performance/scalability/throughput? > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Peter wrote: > > > > > Have a look: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2271600/elasticsearch-sphinx-lucene-solr-xapian-which-fits-for-which-usage > > > > > > > http://karussell.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/elasticsearch-vs-solr-lucene/ > > > > > > Regards, > > > Peter. > > > > > > -- > > > View this message in context: > > > > > > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-vs-ElasticSearch-tp3009181p3200492.html > > > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Salman Akram > > > -- Regards, Salman Akram
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
Not super fresh, but more recent than the 2 links you sent: http://blog.sematext.com/2012/08/23/solr-vs-elasticsearch-part-1-overview/ Otis -- Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/ On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Salman Akram < salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote: > This is quite an old discussion. Wanted to check any new comparisons after > SOLR 4 especially with regards to performance/scalability/throughput? > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Peter wrote: > > > Have a look: > > > > > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2271600/elasticsearch-sphinx-lucene-solr-xapian-which-fits-for-which-usage > > > > http://karussell.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/elasticsearch-vs-solr-lucene/ > > > > Regards, > > Peter. > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > > > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-vs-ElasticSearch-tp3009181p3200492.html > > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > > > -- > Regards, > > Salman Akram >
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
This is quite an old discussion. Wanted to check any new comparisons after SOLR 4 especially with regards to performance/scalability/throughput? On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Peter wrote: > Have a look: > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2271600/elasticsearch-sphinx-lucene-solr-xapian-which-fits-for-which-usage > > http://karussell.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/elasticsearch-vs-solr-lucene/ > > Regards, > Peter. > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-vs-ElasticSearch-tp3009181p3200492.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > -- Regards, Salman Akram
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Tarjei Huse wrote: > On 06/01/2011 08:22 AM, Jason Rutherglen wrote: >> Thanks Shashi, this is oddly coincidental with another issue being put >> into Solr (SOLR-2193) to help solve some of the NRT issues, the timing >> is impeccable. > Hmm, does anyone have an idea on when this will be finished? It's in trunk now... try it out! -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
You might also check out Solandra: https://github.com/tjake/Solandra With Solr's configuration and indexes in Cassandra, you can benefit from replication, distribution etc., and still have Cassandra available for non-Solr specific purposes. Cheers, Jeff On Jul 27, 2011, at 5:17 AM, Tarjei Huse wrote: > On 06/01/2011 08:22 AM, Jason Rutherglen wrote: >> Thanks Shashi, this is oddly coincidental with another issue being put >> into Solr (SOLR-2193) to help solve some of the NRT issues, the timing >> is impeccable. > Hmm, does anyone have an idea on when this will be finished? > > I'm considering if I should wait for the patch to solidify or if I > should switch to ES. >> At a base however Solr uses Lucene, as does ES. I think the main >> advantage of ES is the auto-sharding etc. I think it uses a gossip >> protocol to capitalize on this however... Hmm... > Yes it looks nice. > T >> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Shashi Kant wrote: >>> Here is a very interesting comparison >>> >>> http://engineering.socialcast.com/2011/05/realtime-search-solr-vs-elasticsearch/ >>> >>> -Original Message- From: Mark Sent: May-31-11 10:33 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Solr vs ElasticSearch I've been hearing more and more about ElasticSearch. Can anyone give me a rough overview on how these two technologies differ. What are the strengths/weaknesses of each. Why would one choose one of the other? Thanks > > > -- > Regards / Med vennlig hilsen > Tarjei Huse > Mobil: 920 63 413 > -- Jeff Schmidt 535 Consulting j...@535consulting.com http://www.535consulting.com (650) 423-1068
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
On 06/01/2011 08:22 AM, Jason Rutherglen wrote: > Thanks Shashi, this is oddly coincidental with another issue being put > into Solr (SOLR-2193) to help solve some of the NRT issues, the timing > is impeccable. Hmm, does anyone have an idea on when this will be finished? I'm considering if I should wait for the patch to solidify or if I should switch to ES. > At a base however Solr uses Lucene, as does ES. I think the main > advantage of ES is the auto-sharding etc. I think it uses a gossip > protocol to capitalize on this however... Hmm... Yes it looks nice. T > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Shashi Kant wrote: >> Here is a very interesting comparison >> >> http://engineering.socialcast.com/2011/05/realtime-search-solr-vs-elasticsearch/ >> >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Mark >>> Sent: May-31-11 10:33 PM >>> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org >>> Subject: Solr vs ElasticSearch >>> >>> I've been hearing more and more about ElasticSearch. Can anyone give me a >>> rough overview on how these two technologies differ. What are the >>> strengths/weaknesses of each. Why would one choose one of the other? >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> -- Regards / Med vennlig hilsen Tarjei Huse Mobil: 920 63 413
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
Have a look: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2271600/elasticsearch-sphinx-lucene-solr-xapian-which-fits-for-which-usage http://karussell.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/elasticsearch-vs-solr-lucene/ Regards, Peter. -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-vs-ElasticSearch-tp3009181p3200492.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
You _could_ configure it as a slave, if you plan to sometimes use it as a slave. It can be configured as both a master and a slave. You can configure it as a slave, but turn off automatic polling. And then issue one-off replicate commands whenever you want. But yeah, it gets messy, your use case is definitely not what ReplicationHandler is expecting, definitely some Java improvements would be nice, agreed. On 6/1/2011 12:20 PM, Upayavira wrote: On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 11:47 -0400, "Jonathan Rochkind" wrote: On 6/1/2011 11:26 AM, Upayavira wrote: Probably the ReplicationHandler would need a 'one-off' replication command... It's got one already, if you mean a command you can issue to a slave to tell it to pull replication right now. The thing is, you can only issue this command if the core is configured as a slave. You can turn off polling though. You can include a custom masterURL in the one-off pull command, which over-rides whatever masterURL is configured in the core --- but you still need a masterURL configured in the core, or Solr will complain on startup if the core is configured as slave without a masterURL. (And if it's not configured as a slave, you can't issue the one-off pull command). Right, but this wouldn't be a slave - so I'd want to wire the destination core so that it can accept a 'pull request' without being correctly configured. Stuff to look at. Upayavira
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 11:47 -0400, "Jonathan Rochkind" wrote: > On 6/1/2011 11:26 AM, Upayavira wrote: > > > > Probably the ReplicationHandler would need a 'one-off' replication > > command... > > It's got one already, if you mean a command you can issue to a slave to > tell it to pull replication right now. The thing is, you can only issue > this command if the core is configured as a slave. You can turn off > polling though. > > You can include a custom masterURL in the one-off pull command, which > over-rides whatever masterURL is configured in the core --- but you > still need a masterURL configured in the core, or Solr will complain on > startup if the core is configured as slave without a masterURL. (And if > it's not configured as a slave, you can't issue the one-off pull > command). Right, but this wouldn't be a slave - so I'd want to wire the destination core so that it can accept a 'pull request' without being correctly configured. Stuff to look at. Upayavira
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
Jonathan, This is all true, however it ends up being hacky (this is from experience) and the core on the source needs to be deleted. Feel free to post to the issue. Jason On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > On 6/1/2011 10:52 AM, Jason Rutherglen wrote: >> >> nightmarish to setup. The problem is, it freezes each core into a >> respective role, so if I wanted to then 'move' the slave, I can't >> because it's still setup as a slave. > > Don't know if this helps or not, but you CAN set up a core as both a master > and a slave. Normally this is to make it a "repeater", still always taking > from the same upstream and sending downstream. But there might be a way to > hack it for your needs without actually changing Java code, a core _can_ be > both a master and slave simultaneously, and there might be a way to change > it's masterURL (where it pulls from when acting as a slave) without > restarting the core too. You can supply a 'custom' (not configured) > masterURL in a manual 'pull' command (over HTTP), but of course usually > slaves poll rather than be directed by manual 'pull' commands. > >
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
On 6/1/2011 11:26 AM, Upayavira wrote: Probably the ReplicationHandler would need a 'one-off' replication command... It's got one already, if you mean a command you can issue to a slave to tell it to pull replication right now. The thing is, you can only issue this command if the core is configured as a slave. You can turn off polling though. You can include a custom masterURL in the one-off pull command, which over-rides whatever masterURL is configured in the core --- but you still need a masterURL configured in the core, or Solr will complain on startup if the core is configured as slave without a masterURL. (And if it's not configured as a slave, you can't issue the one-off pull command). This is all from my experience on 1.4, don't know if things change in 3.1, probably not.
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
On 6/1/2011 10:52 AM, Jason Rutherglen wrote: nightmarish to setup. The problem is, it freezes each core into a respective role, so if I wanted to then 'move' the slave, I can't because it's still setup as a slave. Don't know if this helps or not, but you CAN set up a core as both a master and a slave. Normally this is to make it a "repeater", still always taking from the same upstream and sending downstream. But there might be a way to hack it for your needs without actually changing Java code, a core _can_ be both a master and slave simultaneously, and there might be a way to change it's masterURL (where it pulls from when acting as a slave) without restarting the core too. You can supply a 'custom' (not configured) masterURL in a manual 'pull' command (over HTTP), but of course usually slaves poll rather than be directed by manual 'pull' commands.
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
> And some way to delete the core when it has been transferred. Right, I manually added that to CoreAdminHandler. I opened an issue to try to solve this problem: SOLR-2569 On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Upayavira wrote: > > > On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 07:52 -0700, "Jason Rutherglen" > wrote: >> > I'm likely to try playing with moving cores between hosts soon. In >> > theory it shouldn't be hard. We'll see what the practice is like! >> >> Right, in theory it's quite simple, in practice I've setup a master, >> then a slave, then had to add replication to both, then call create >> core, then replicate, then unload core on the master. It's >> nightmarish to setup. The problem is, it freezes each core into a >> respective role, so if I wanted to then 'move' the slave, I can't >> because it's still setup as a slave. > > Yep, I'm expecting it to require some changes to both the > CoreAdminHandler and the ReplicationHandler. > > Probably the ReplicationHandler would need a 'one-off' replication > command. And some way to delete the core when it has been transferred. > > Upayavira > >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Upayavira wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Tue, 31 May 2011 19:38 -0700, "Jason Rutherglen" >> > wrote: >> >> Mark, >> >> >> >> Nice email address. I personally have no idea, maybe ask Shay Banon >> >> to post an answer? I think it's possible to make Solr more elastic, >> >> eg, it's currently difficult to make it move cores between servers >> >> without a lot of manual labor. >> > >> > I'm likely to try playing with moving cores between hosts soon. In >> > theory it shouldn't be hard. We'll see what the practice is like! >> > >> > Upayavira >> > --- >> > Enterprise Search Consultant at Sourcesense UK, >> > Making Sense of Open Source >> > >> > >> > --- > Enterprise Search Consultant at Sourcesense UK, > Making Sense of Open Source > >
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 07:52 -0700, "Jason Rutherglen" wrote: > > I'm likely to try playing with moving cores between hosts soon. In > > theory it shouldn't be hard. We'll see what the practice is like! > > Right, in theory it's quite simple, in practice I've setup a master, > then a slave, then had to add replication to both, then call create > core, then replicate, then unload core on the master. It's > nightmarish to setup. The problem is, it freezes each core into a > respective role, so if I wanted to then 'move' the slave, I can't > because it's still setup as a slave. Yep, I'm expecting it to require some changes to both the CoreAdminHandler and the ReplicationHandler. Probably the ReplicationHandler would need a 'one-off' replication command. And some way to delete the core when it has been transferred. Upayavira > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Upayavira wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 31 May 2011 19:38 -0700, "Jason Rutherglen" > > wrote: > >> Mark, > >> > >> Nice email address. I personally have no idea, maybe ask Shay Banon > >> to post an answer? I think it's possible to make Solr more elastic, > >> eg, it's currently difficult to make it move cores between servers > >> without a lot of manual labor. > > > > I'm likely to try playing with moving cores between hosts soon. In > > theory it shouldn't be hard. We'll see what the practice is like! > > > > Upayavira > > --- > > Enterprise Search Consultant at Sourcesense UK, > > Making Sense of Open Source > > > > > --- Enterprise Search Consultant at Sourcesense UK, Making Sense of Open Source
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
> I'm likely to try playing with moving cores between hosts soon. In > theory it shouldn't be hard. We'll see what the practice is like! Right, in theory it's quite simple, in practice I've setup a master, then a slave, then had to add replication to both, then call create core, then replicate, then unload core on the master. It's nightmarish to setup. The problem is, it freezes each core into a respective role, so if I wanted to then 'move' the slave, I can't because it's still setup as a slave. On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Upayavira wrote: > > > On Tue, 31 May 2011 19:38 -0700, "Jason Rutherglen" > wrote: >> Mark, >> >> Nice email address. I personally have no idea, maybe ask Shay Banon >> to post an answer? I think it's possible to make Solr more elastic, >> eg, it's currently difficult to make it move cores between servers >> without a lot of manual labor. > > I'm likely to try playing with moving cores between hosts soon. In > theory it shouldn't be hard. We'll see what the practice is like! > > Upayavira > --- > Enterprise Search Consultant at Sourcesense UK, > Making Sense of Open Source > >
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
On Tue, 31 May 2011 19:38 -0700, "Jason Rutherglen" wrote: > Mark, > > Nice email address. I personally have no idea, maybe ask Shay Banon > to post an answer? I think it's possible to make Solr more elastic, > eg, it's currently difficult to make it move cores between servers > without a lot of manual labor. I'm likely to try playing with moving cores between hosts soon. In theory it shouldn't be hard. We'll see what the practice is like! Upayavira --- Enterprise Search Consultant at Sourcesense UK, Making Sense of Open Source
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
Well, I recently chose it for a personal project and the deciding thing for me was that it had nice integration to couchdb. Thanks, Bryan Rasmussen On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Mark wrote > I've been hearing more and more about ElasticSearch. Can anyone give me a > rough overview on how these two technologies differ. What are the > strengths/weaknesses of each. Why would one choose one of the other? > > Thanks >
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
Thanks Shashi, this is oddly coincidental with another issue being put into Solr (SOLR-2193) to help solve some of the NRT issues, the timing is impeccable. At a base however Solr uses Lucene, as does ES. I think the main advantage of ES is the auto-sharding etc. I think it uses a gossip protocol to capitalize on this however... Hmm... On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Shashi Kant wrote: > Here is a very interesting comparison > > http://engineering.socialcast.com/2011/05/realtime-search-solr-vs-elasticsearch/ > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Mark >> Sent: May-31-11 10:33 PM >> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org >> Subject: Solr vs ElasticSearch >> >> I've been hearing more and more about ElasticSearch. Can anyone give me a >> rough overview on how these two technologies differ. What are the >> strengths/weaknesses of each. Why would one choose one of the other? >> >> Thanks >> >> >
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
Nice article... 2 ms better than 20 ms, but in another chart 50 seconds are not as good as 3 seconds... Sorry for my vision... SOLR pushed into Lucene Core huge amount of performance improvements... Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Shashi Kant Sender: shashi@gmail.com Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 01:01:51 To: Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch Here is a very interesting comparison http://engineering.socialcast.com/2011/05/realtime-search-solr-vs-elasticsearch/ > -Original Message- > From: Mark > Sent: May-31-11 10:33 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Solr vs ElasticSearch > > I've been hearing more and more about ElasticSearch. Can anyone give me a > rough overview on how these two technologies differ. What are the > strengths/weaknesses of each. Why would one choose one of the other? > > Thanks > >
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
Here is a very interesting comparison http://engineering.socialcast.com/2011/05/realtime-search-solr-vs-elasticsearch/ > -Original Message- > From: Mark > Sent: May-31-11 10:33 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Solr vs ElasticSearch > > I've been hearing more and more about ElasticSearch. Can anyone give me a > rough overview on how these two technologies differ. What are the > strengths/weaknesses of each. Why would one choose one of the other? > > Thanks > >
RE: Solr vs ElasticSearch
Interesting wordings: "we want real-time search, we want simple multi-tenancy, and we want a solution that is built for the cloud" And later, " built on top of Lucene." Is that possible? :) (what does that mean "real time search" anyway... and what is "cloud"?) community is growing! P.S. I never used Elastic Search, but I used Compass before moving to SOLR. And Compass uses wordings like as "real-time *transactional* search". Yes, it's good and it has own use case (small databases, reduced development time, junior-level staff, single-JVM environment) I'd consider requirements at first, then will see which tool simplifies my task (fulfils most requirements). It could be Elastic, or SOLR, or Compass, or direct Lucene, or even SQL, SequenceFile, SQL, in-memory TreeSet, and etc. Also depends on requirements, budget, team&skills. -Original Message- From: Mark Sent: May-31-11 10:33 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Solr vs ElasticSearch I've been hearing more and more about ElasticSearch. Can anyone give me a rough overview on how these two technologies differ. What are the strengths/weaknesses of each. Why would one choose one of the other? Thanks
Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
Mark, Nice email address. I personally have no idea, maybe ask Shay Banon to post an answer? I think it's possible to make Solr more elastic, eg, it's currently difficult to make it move cores between servers without a lot of manual labor. Jason On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Mark wrote: > I've been hearing more and more about ElasticSearch. Can anyone give me a > rough overview on how these two technologies differ. What are the > strengths/weaknesses of each. Why would one choose one of the other? > > Thanks >