lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>
Subject Re: [Solr Wiki] Update of "NewSolrCloudDesign" by YonikSeeley
Date Mon, 05 Sep 2011 16:13:04 GMT
I'm wondering if we shouldn't ditch the new term "partition" here and
just use "replica"?

In the past, we've sort of used "shard" to mean both a single physical
index, and the logical piece of the larger collection.  In practice,
this ambiguity normally isn't much of a problem as it's normally clear
by context and when it's not we sometimes throw in the word "replica".
 Examples:  "Doc X belongs on Shard Z", "Shard Z on this node is
corrupt".

Refreshing my memory on our ZK layout, it seems like we are using
"shards" in the logical sense there.

     /COLLECTIONS (v=6 children=1)
          COLLECTION1 (v=0 children=1) "configName=myconf"
               SHARDS (v=0 children=1)
                    SHARD1 (v=0 children=1)
                         ROGUE.LOCAL:8983_SOLR_ (v=0)
"node_name=Rogue.local:8983_solr url=http://Rogue.local:8983/solr/"

So perhaps we should just continue that, and change "partition" to
"replica" when necessary to prevent ambiguity?

-Yonik
http://www.lucene-eurocon.com - The Lucene/Solr User Conference

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message