Offhand I suspect this would be an enormous effort, not worth the work. I agree that double-or-nothing is not terribly convenient, but that said since multiple replicas can be hosted on the same node and moved to other hardware as needed (oversharding, even for existing collections) there are ways to deal with this currently.
There would have to be extraordinary benefits to interest me. And the stated benefit so far of being able to expand gradually rather than doubling shards isn’t an extraordinary benefit. That effort would come at the expense of a lot of other work. Another way of saying it is that the burden of proof for the benefits is on you ;). Best, Erick > On Jun 28, 2019, at 8:51 PM, Will Martin <wmartin...@outlook.com> wrote: > > From: S G <sg.online.em...@gmail.com<mailto:sg.online.em...@gmail.com>> > Subject: Discuss: virtual nodes in Solr > Date: June 28, 2019 at 8:04:44 PM EDT > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org<mailto:solr-user@lucene.apache.org> > Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org<mailto:solr-user@lucene.apache.org> > > Hi, > > Has Solr tried to use vnodes concept like Cassandra: > https://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/virtual-nodes-in-cassandra-1-2<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.datastax.com%2Fdev%2Fblog%2Fvirtual-nodes-in-cassandra-1-2&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cd5e503d4cc6446e4effb08d6fc3c7ff8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636973734116277981&sdata=k7kocZQHr342tm8swfyS%2FovYqFfmkHm1rZtlRCS9%2FOo%3D&reserved=0> > > If this can be implemented carefully, we need not live with just > shard-splitting alone that can only double the number of shards. > With vnodes, shards can be increased incrementally as the need arises. > What's more, shards can be decreased too when the doc-count/traffic > decreases. > > -SG > > +1 > > Carefully? Deliberate would be a better word with this community; imho. How > about an incubation epic story PMC? > > >
