To add: 5.x is NOT a hugely different thing from 4.x. The version update was because of Lucene index versioning issues, nothing to do with core functionality within Solr.
So, there really is no reason to hold back from using a 5.x release (any more than there is from holding back from using any latest-and-greatest release of anything). Upayavira On Fri, Oct 23, 2015, at 07:50 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote: > Definitely 5.x. Lots of new goodies. It is true that some of the > startup scripts are different and the example schemas could be > slightly confusing if following a book, but I think it is well worth > starting on a good foot. Just remember, no "collection1" anymore, all > cores/collections are explicit. And there are tutorial and reference > guide available to help you along. > > And "Solr in Action" is a great book to purchase. Though, I'd > recommend an electronic copy unless you want an exercise regime as > well :-) > > I would say grab my book as well if you just want step by step > introduction, but frankly it is definitely out of date (Solr 4.3!) and > publisher pushed the price up into the ridiculous territory last time > I checked. So, don't buy it. But if you have O'Reilly Safari account > of some other ways to get to it, give it a glance too. > > Regards, > Alex. > ---- > Solr Analyzers, Tokenizers, Filters, URPs and even a newsletter: > http://www.solr-start.com/ > > > On 23 October 2015 at 14:22, Robert Hume <rhum...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm investigating installing a new Solr deployment to be able to search > > about two million documents (mostly HTML and PDF). > > > > QUESTIONS: > > > > A. Should I use Solr 4.x or 5.x? My concerns are mostly to do with > > support. Is 5.x too new to be able to get good answers and advice from the > > community? Or should I stick with the latest 4.x release? > > > > B. Anyone have a good book recommendation? I was thinking of buying "Solr > > In Action" but it looks like it was published in April 2014 so it won't > > have any 5.x info in it? > > > > Thanks! > > Rob
