I used Solr with indexes on NFS and I do not recommend it. It was either 100 or 1000 times slower than local disc for indexing, I forget which. Unusable.
This is not a problem with Solr/Lucene, I have seen the same NFS performance cost with other search engines. wunder On 6/21/07 3:22 AM, "Otis Gospodnetic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > SOLR-215 support multiple indices on a single Solr instance. It does *not* > support searching of multiple indices at once (e.g. parallel search) and > merging of results. > > This has nothing to do with NFS, though. > > Otis > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Simpy -- http://www.simpy.com/ - Tag - Search - Share > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: James liu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 3:45:06 AM > Subject: Re: Multiple doc types in schema > > I see SOLR-215 from this mail. > > Does it now really support multi index and search it will return merged > data? > > for example: > > i wanna search: aaa, and i have index1, index2, index3, index4,,,,it should > return the result from index1,index2,index3, index4 and merge result by > score, datetime, or other thing. > > Does it support NFS and how its performance? > > > > 2007/6/21, Otis Gospodnetic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> This sounds like a potentially good use-case for SOLR-215! >> See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-215 >> >> Otis >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> Simpy -- http://www.simpy.com/ - Tag - Search - Share >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org; Jack L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2007 6:58:10 AM >> Subject: Re: Multiple doc types in schema >> >> >> : This is based on my understanding that solr/lucene does not >> : have the concept of document type. It only sees fields. >> : >> : Is my understanding correct? >> >> it is. >> >> : It seems a bit unclean to mix fields of all document types >> : in the same schema though. Or, is there a way to allow multiple >> : document types in the schema, and specify what type to use >> : when indexing and searching? >> >> it's really just an issue of semantics ... the schema.xml is where you >> list all of the fields you need in your index, any notion of doctype is >> entire artificial ... you could group all of the >> fields relating to doctypeA in one section of the schema.xml, then have a >> big <!-- ##...## --> line and then list the fields in doctypeB, etc... but >> wat if there are fields you use in both "doctypes" ? .. how much you "mix" >> them is entirely up to you. >> >> >> >> -Hoss >> >> >> >> >> >
