On Jan 4, 2013, at 2:14 PM, Per Steffensen wrote:
>> I'm not sure what the node tells Zookeeper and who does shard assignment. I
>> mean, does a node explicitly say what shard it wants to be, or is that
>> assigned by Zookeeper, or is that a node's choice/option?
It's basically both. If you
M to be working for the most part, even
>> though we may not have defined them carefully enough and used them
>> consistently enough.
>>
>> If somebody want to propose an alternative terminology - fine, discuss
>> that on the dev list and/or file a Jira.
>>
>>
fect (yet), but perfecting
the definitions (for users) should be separated from changing the
terms themselves.
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message- From: Per Steffensen
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 2:49 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection v
od point. Agree.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
Original message
From: Upayavira
Date:
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
Using your terminology, I'd say core is a physical solr term, and index
is a
2013, at 1:49 PM, darren wrote:
> Good point. Agree.
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
>
> Original message
> From: Upayavira
> Date:
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs
Good point. Agree.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
Original message
From: Upayavira
Date:
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
Using your terminology, I'd say core is a physical solr term
solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
>
> Can I just start by saying that this was AMAZING. :-) When I asked the
> question, I certainly did not expect this level of details.
>
> And I vote on the cake diagram for WIKI as wel
Smartphone
Original message
From: Alexandre Rafalovitch
Date:
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
Hmm. Doesn't that make (logical) index=collection? And (physical)
index=core? Which creates duplication of terminolog
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch
wrote:
> Hmm. Doesn't that make (logical) index=collection? And (physical)
> index=core? Which creates duplication of terminology and at the same time
> can cause confusion between highest logical and lowest physical level.
That's why I've avo
y 04, 2013 1:12 PM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
>
> Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
>
> Can I just start by saying that this was AMAZING. :-) When I asked the
> question, I certainly did not expect this level of details.
>
> And I vote on the cake d
: Alexandre Rafalovitch
Date:
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
Can I just start by saying that this was AMAZING. :-) When I asked the
question, I certainly did not expect this level of details.
And I vote on the cake diagram for WIKI as
@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
Can I just start by saying that this was AMAZING. :-) When I asked the
question, I certainly did not expect this level of details.
And I vote on the cake diagram for WIKI as well. Perhaps, two with the
first one showing the
the containment hierarchy i understand but includes both physical
> and logical.
>
> Original message
> From: darren
> Date:
> To: dar...@ontrenet.com,yo...@lucidworks.com,solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collect
question: Core vs. Collection vs...
Actually. Node/collection/shard/replica/core/index
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
Original message
From: darren
Date:
To: yo...@lucidworks.com,solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs
Actually. Node/collection/shard/replica/core/index
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
Original message
From: darren
Date:
To: yo...@lucidworks.com,solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
Agreed. But for
Agreed. But for completeness can it be node/collection/shard/replica/core?
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
Original message
From: Yonik Seeley
Date:
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
On Fri, Jan
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Per Steffensen wrote:
> Our biggest problem is that we really havent decided once and for all and
> made sure to reflect the decision consistently across code and
> documentation. As long as we havnt I believe it is still ok to change our
> minds.
IMO, I *think* it
@lucene.apache.org,darren
Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
I thought about adding Solr core, but it only muddies the water. Yes, it
needs to be added, but carefully.
In the context of SolrCloud, a Solr core is the underlying representation of
a replica
9:00 AM
To: j...@basetechnology.com ; solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
This is a good explanation and makes sense. The one inconsistency is
referring to a replica of a shard that has no replication. But its not that
big of a problem. If you
my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
Original message
From: Jack Krupansky
Date:
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
Replication makes perfect sense even if our explanations so far do not.
A shard is an abstraction o
ent: Friday, January 04, 2013 2:49 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
On 1/3/13 5:58 PM, Walter Underwood wrote:
A "factor" is multiplied, so multiplying the leader by a replicationFactor
of 1 means you have exactly one cop
On 1/3/13 5:58 PM, Walter Underwood wrote:
A "factor" is multiplied, so multiplying the leader by a replicationFactor of 1
means you have exactly one copy of that shard.
I think that recycling the term "replication" within Solr was confusing, but it
is a bit late to change that.
wunder
Yes, t
On 1/3/13 4:55 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
Trying to forge our own path here seems more confusing than helpful
IMO. We have enough issues with terminology right now - where we can
go with the industry standard, I think we should. - Mark
Fair enough.
I dont think our biggest problem is whether we d
ry 03, 2013 9:18 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
Yes. And its worth to note that when having multiple shards in a
single node(@deprecated) that they are shards of different
collections...
--- Original Message ---
On 1/3
words, add nodes incrementally without
having to reindex all the data.
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message- From: Darren Govoni
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 9:18 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
Yes. And its worth to
And based on the previous explanation there is never a "copy of a shard". A
shard represents and contains only replicas for itself, replicas being copies of cores
within the shard.
--- Original Message ---
On 1/3/2013 11:58 AM Walter Underwood wrote:A "factor" is multiplied, so
multip
A "factor" is multiplied, so multiplying the leader by a replicationFactor of 1
means you have exactly one copy of that shard.
I think that recycling the term "replication" within Solr was confusing, but it
is a bit late to change that.
wunder
On Jan 3, 2013, at 7:33 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
On Jan 3, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
> On Jan 3, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Per Steffensen wrote:
>
>> "Why Solr is better than its competitors" list :-)
>
> The problem is that it's not just Solr competitors. It seems to be pretty
> much everyone. If you can provide counter examples,
On Jan 3, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Per Steffensen wrote:
> "Why Solr is better than its competitors" list :-)
The problem is that it's not just Solr competitors. It seems to be pretty much
everyone. If you can provide counter examples, I'd be interested to see them,
but I've found confirmation exam
Great point.
--- Original Message ---
On 1/3/2013 10:42 AM Per Steffensen wrote:On 1/3/13 4:33 PM, Mark Miller
wrote:
> This has pretty much become the standard across other distributed systems
and in the literat…err…books.
Hmmm Im not sure you are right about that. Maybe more than one
On 1/3/13 4:33 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
This has pretty much become the standard across other distributed systems and
in the literat…err…books.
Hmmm Im not sure you are right about that. Maybe more than one
distributed system calls them "Replica", but there is also a lot that
doesnt. But if you
This has pretty much become the standard across other distributed systems and
in the literat…err…books.
I first implemented it as you mention you'd like, but Yonik correctly pointed
out that we were going against the grain.
- Mark
On Jan 3, 2013, at 10:01 AM, Per Steffensen wrote:
> For the
ensen
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 9:52 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
Hi
Here is my version - do not believe the explanations have been very clear
We have the following concepts (here I will try to explain what each the
c
For the same reasons that "Replica" shouldnt be called "Replica" (it
requires to long an explanation to agree that it is an ok name),
"replicationFactor" shouldnt be called "replicationFactor" and long as
it referes to the TOTAL number of cores you get for your "Shard".
"replicationFactor" woul
Hi
Here is my version - do not believe the explanations have been very clear
We have the following concepts (here I will try to explain what each the
concept cover without naming it - its hard)
1) Machines (virtual or physical) running Solr server JVMs (one machine
can run several Solr server
other words,
add nodes incrementally without having to reindex all the data.
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message-
From: Darren Govoni
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 9:18 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
Yes. And its
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Darren Govoni wrote:
> I think what's confusing about your explanation below is when you have a
> situation where there is no replication factor. That's possible too, yes?
>
> So in that case, is each core of a shard of a collection, still referred to
> as a replica
h a "copy" of the logical subset of the collection's data. Each
replica is a copy of the other replicas for that shard.
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message-
From: Darren Govoni
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 9:17 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Re:
On Jan 3, 2013, at 9:17 AM, Darren Govoni wrote:
> Even a non-replicated core is called a replica?
To some :) Forcing agreement on terminology has been … challenging…
And even if there is some agreement, new people come, old people that were not
around for the agreement come back, etc.
Usua
---
From: Darren Govoni
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 9:10 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
Thanks. I got that part.
A group of shards (and therefore cores) represent a collection, yes. But a
single shard exist only on a single co
, January 03, 2013 9:10 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
Thanks. I got that part.
A group of shards (and therefore cores) represent a collection, yes. But a
single shard exist only on a single core?
--- Original Message ---
On 1
solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
Oops... let me word that a little more carefully:
...we are "replicating the data of each shard".
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message-
From: Jack Krupansky
Sent: Thursday, January
e data of each shard".
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message-
From: Jack Krupansky
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 9:03 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
No, a shard is a subset (or "slice") of the collection. Sharding
al Message-
From: Jack Krupansky
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 9:08 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
Oops... let me word that a little more carefully:
...we are "replicating the data of each shard".
-- Jack Kru
of the terminology.
So, we're not "sharding shards", but we are "replicating shards".
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message-
From: Darren Govoni
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 8:51 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Re: Terminology question: Core
metimes to a single replica
as it
contains only a "slice" of the full collection data.
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message-----
From: Alexandre Rafalovitch
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 4:42 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
Hel
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 8:16 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
Good write up.
And what about "node"?
I think there needs to be an official glossary of terms that is
sanctioned
by the solr team and s
ce" of the full collection data.
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message-
From: Alexandre Rafalovitch
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 4:42 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
Hello,
I am trying to understand the core Solr terminol
a cluster.
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message-
From: Darren Govoni
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 8:16 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
Good write up.
And what about "node"?
I think there needs to be an offic
Jack Krupansky
-Original Message-
From: Alexandre Rafalovitch
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 4:42 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
Hello,
I am trying to understand the core Solr terminology. I am looking for
correct rather than
-
From: Alexandre Rafalovitch
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 4:42 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
Hello,
I am trying to understand the core Solr terminology. I am looking for
correct rather than loose meaning as I am trying to teach a
Haven't seen these yet. These look like a great start, though now I see
even more terms to figure out.
Thank you,
Alex.
Personal blog: http://blog.outerthoughts.com/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexandrerafalovitch
- Time is the quality of nature that keeps events from happening all a
Hi,
If you haven't already, please refer to:
http://www.ngdata.com/site/blog/57-ng.html
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/solr-cloud-concepts-td3726292.html
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrCloud#FAQ
Regards,
Aloke
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am
Hello,
I am trying to understand the core Solr terminology. I am looking for
correct rather than loose meaning as I am trying to teach an example that
starts from easy scenario and may scale to multi-core, multi-machine
situation.
Here are the terms that seem to be all overlapping and/or crossing
54 matches
Mail list logo
