Thanks Alexandre, I think I have followed that discussion, there was another one AFAIR on the dev list.
On your diagram, am I guessing it correctly, that shard1 and shard2 inside a collection would at least share the same schema? On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch <arafa...@gmail.com>wrote: > Search this mailing list and you will find a very long discussion about the > terminology and confusion around it.My contribution to that was the crude > picture trying to explain it: http://bit.ly/1aqohUf . Maybe it will help. > > If you don't want longer URL, do use solr.xml and use @adminPath and > @defaultCoreName > parameters. But you don't need the rest. > > Regards, > Alex. > > > Personal website: http://www.outerthoughts.com/ > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexandrerafalovitch > - Time is the quality of nature that keeps events from happening all at > once. Lately, it doesn't seem to be working. (Anonymous - via GTD book) > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Dmitry Kan <solrexp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks Alexandre, > > > > Well, the initial question was, whether it is possible to altogether > avoid > > dealing with collections (extra layer, longer url). But it seems this is > an > > internal new feature of solr 4 generation. In solr 3 it was just a core, > > which could be "avoided" if no solr.xml was found. > > > > With this release my solr terminology has transformed into having some > > ambiguous words (collection and core) referring to the same thing. I'm > not > > even sure, what shard is nowadays :) > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch > > <arafa...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > If you only have one collection and no Solr cloud, then don't use > > solr.xml > > > at all. It will automatically assume 'collection1' as a name. > > > > > > If you do want to have some control (shards, etc), do not include the > > > optional parameters you do not need. See example here: > > > > > > > > > http://my.safaribooksonline.com/book/databases/9781782164845/1dot-instant-apache-solr-for-indexing-data-how-to/ch01s02_html > > > > > > You don't even need defaultCoreName attribute, if you are happy to > always > > > include core name in the URL. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Alex. > > > > > > Personal website: http://www.outerthoughts.com/ > > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexandrerafalovitch > > > - Time is the quality of nature that keeps events from happening all at > > > once. Lately, it doesn't seem to be working. (Anonymous - via GTD > book) > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Dmitry Kan <solrexp...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Sorry, hit send too fast.. > > > > > > > > picking up: > > > > > > > > from the answer by Jayendra on the link, collections and cores are > the > > > same > > > > thing. Same is seconded by the config: > > > > > > > > <cores adminPath="/admin/cores" defaultCoreName="collection1" > > > > host="${host:}" hostPort="${jetty.port:8983}" > > > > hostContext="${hostContext:solr}" > > > > zkClientTimeout="${zkClientTimeout:15000}"> > > > > <core name="collection1" instanceDir="." /> > > > > </cores> > > > > > > > > we basically define cores. > > > > > > > > We have a plain {frontend_solr, shards} setup with solr 3.4 and were > > > > thinking of starting off with it initially in solr 4. In solr 4: can > > one > > > > get by without using collections = cores? > > > > > > > > We also don't plan on using SolrCloud at the moment. So from our > > > standpoint > > > > the solr4 configuration looks more complicated, than that of solr > 3.4. > > > Are > > > > there any benefits of such a setup for non SolrCloud users? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Dmitry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Dmitry Kan <solrexp...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello list, > > > > > > > > > > Following the answer by Jaendra here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14516279/how-to-add-collections-to-solr-core > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
