On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Jason Rutherglen <jason.rutherg...@gmail.com> wrote: > The page is huge, which signals to me maybe we're trying to do > too much
This is really about doing not-so-much in the very near term, while thinking ahead to the longer term. > Revamping distributed search could be in a different branch > (this includes partial results) That could just be a separate patch - it's scope is not that broad (I think there may already be a JIRA issue open for it). > Having a single solrconfig and schema for each core/shard in a > collection won't work for me. I need to define each core > externally, and I don't want Solr-Cloud to manage this, how will > this scenario work? We do plan on each core being able to have it's own schema (so one could try out a version of a schema and gradually migrate the cluster). It could also be possible to define a schema as "local" (i.e. use the one on the local file system) > A host is about the same as node, I don't see the difference, or > enough of one A host is the hardware. It will have limited disk, limited CPU, etc. At some point we will want to model this... multiple nodes could be launched on one box. We're not doing anything with it now, and won't in the near future. > Cluster resizing and rebalancing can and should be built > externally and hopefully after an initial release that does the > basics well The initial release will certainly not be doing any resizing or rebalancing. We should allow this to be done externally. In the future, we shouldn't require that this be done externally though (i.e. we should somehow alow the cluster to grow w/o people having to write code). > Collection is a group of cores? A collection of documents - the complete search index. It has a single schema, etc. -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com
