On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Darren Govoni <dar...@ontrenet.com> 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? > To me a replica is a duplicate/backup of a shard's core. Not the sharded > core itself. Or is there just no difference. Even a non-replicated core is > called a replica?
Think of it in terms of documents and not indexes. We're normally not making copies of the index, we are putting documents in multiple places. Hence: replicationFactor=2 means that each document will exist in 2 places in the cluster (on two replicas of a logical shard). Also look at the clusterstate.json from the admin... all replicas are equal with one having a "leader bit", but it's a a transitory thing. It makes sense to ask "what replica is the leader now"? -Yonik http://lucidworks.com
