I think Jack was mostly thinking in "slam dunk" terms. I know of SolrCloud demo clusters with 500+ nodes, and at that point people said "it's going to work for our situation, we don't need to push more".
As you start getting into that kind of scale, though, you really have a bunch of ops considerations etc. Mostly when I get into larger scales I pretty much want to examine my assumptions and see if they're correct, perhaps start to trim my requirements etc. FWIW, Erick On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Ramkumar R. Aiyengar <andyetitmo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 5. No more than 32 nodes in your SolrCloud cluster. > > I hope this isn't too OT, but what tradeoffs is this based on? Would have > thought it easy to hit this number for a big index and high load (hence > with the view of both the number of shards and replicas horizontally > scaling..) > >> 6. Don't return more than 250 results on a query. >> >> None of those is a hard limit, but don't go beyond them unless your Proof > of Concept testing proves that performance is acceptable for your situation. >> >> Start with a simple 4-node, 2-shard, 2-replica cluster for preliminary > tests and then scale as needed. >> >> Dynamic and multivalued fields? Try to stay away from them - excepts for > the simplest cases, they are usually an indicator of a weak data model. > Sure, it's fine to store a relatively small number of values in a > multivalued field (say, dozens of values), but be aware that you can't > directly access individual values, you can't tell which was matched on a > query, and you can't coordinate values between multiple multivalued fields. > Except for very simple cases, multivalued fields should be flattened into > multiple documents with a parent ID. >> >> Since you brought up the topic of dynamic fields, I am curious how you > got the impression that they were a good technique to use as a starting > point. They're fine for prototyping and hacking, and fine when used in > moderation, but not when used to excess. The whole point of Solr is > searching and searching is optimized within fields, not across fields, so > having lots of dynamic fields is counter to the primary strengths of Lucene > and Solr. And... schemas with lots of dynamic fields tend to be difficult > to maintain. For example, if you wanted to ask a support question here, one > of the first things we want to know is what your schema looks like, but > with lots of dynamic fields it is not possible to have a simple discussion > of what your schema looks like. >> >> Sure, there is something called "schemaless design" (and Solr supports > that in 4.4), but that's very different from heavy reliance on dynamic > fields in the traditional sense. Schemaless design is A-OK, but using > dynamic fields for "arrays" of data in a single document is a poor match > for the search features of Solr (e.g., Edismax searching across multiple > fields.) >> >> One other tidbit: Although Solr does not enforce naming conventions for > field names, and you can put special characters in them, there are plenty > of features in Solr, such as the common "fl" parameter, where field names > are expected to adhere to Java naming rules. When people start "going wild" > with dynamic fields, it is common that they start "going wild" with their > names as well, using spaces, colons, slashes, etc. that cannot be parsed in > the "fl" and "qf" parameters, for example. Please don't go there! >> >> In short, put up a small cluster and start doing a Proof of Concept > cluster. Stay within my suggested guidelines and you should do okay. >> >> -- Jack Krupansky >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Marcelo Elias Del Valle >> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 9:46 AM >> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org >> Subject: Solr limitations >> >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> I am trying to search information about possible solr limitations I >> should consider in my architecture. Things like max number of dynamic >> fields, max number o documents in SolrCloud, etc. >> Does anyone know where I can find this info? >> >> Best regards, >> -- >> Marcelo Elias Del Valle >> http://mvalle.com - @mvallebr
