lucene-solr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Toru Matsuzawa (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (SOLR-255) RemoteSearchable for Solr(use RMI)
Date Wed, 27 Jun 2007 02:18:26 GMT


Toru Matsuzawa commented on SOLR-255:

Hi Otis & Henri,

Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
> So with your patch one can search any *one* of those indices,
> or any *group* of those indices, 
> correct?  In the case where a *group* of indices is searched,
> do you search them in parallel and merge the results?

With my patch one can search a group of these indeces.
Each index in the group is searched in sequence, 
and then each result is merged.

Henri Biestro wrote:
> I've been looking quickly at your patch and 
> kinda understands why Otis is pushing for a merge. :-)
> I dont know how this is usually done; 
> should we merge the 2 issues and merge our patches?
> I can try & see how this goes if you want.

I inspected the patch of SOLR-215. 
The overlaps between SOLR-215 and SOLR255 are 
in the constructor of SolrIndexSearcher and SolrCore.
Each modification should be committed sequentially.
After that, there are not many additional modifications.

The commitment should be done through some stages. 
(It might be acceptable Step1 and Step2 is in reverse order. Or, simultaneous? ) 
Step1) MultiCore (SOLR-215) 
Step2) The functionality of MultiSearcher, exclude modification of RMI and Lucene.
       (SolrMultiSearcher and SolrIndexSearchable) 
Step3) The modification of Lucene
Step4) The functional addition to the RMI (SolrRemoteSearcher) 
       (When it becomes MultiCore, additional modification, in which 
        the remote object of RMI should be created dynamically, will be needed.)

> One thing that worries me though is the Lucene patch dependency; 
> any way to only have a Solr patch?
> I would suspect that Lucene committers are as busy as Solr 's 
> so the review process might take sometime.
> Although from far, it does look like pretty harmless changes so there is hope...

The RMI (SolrRemoteSearcher) causes the Lucene patch dependency.
There will be no impact on SOLR-215 by the above-mentioned procedure.

> As a side note, I was wondering if we could extend 
> you patch's functionality and get read/write capability per index
> (as in ,
> document indexing load balancing could be performed 
> on hashing unique key % number of indexes for instance 
> or by some configurable class). 
> The current functionality would be retained 
> by specificying 'read-only' versus 'read-write' for each index.

I also have ideas about this but those are not concrete enough.
Anyway, that will be done through Step5 and later.


> RemoteSearchable for Solr(use RMI)
> ----------------------------------
>                 Key: SOLR-255
>                 URL:
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: search
>            Reporter: Toru Matsuzawa
>         Attachments:
> I experimentally implemented RemoteSearchable of Lucene for Solr.
> I referred to "FederatedSearch" and used RMI. 
> Two or more Searchers can be referred to with SolrIndexSearcher.
> These query-only indexes can be specified in solrconfig.xml, 
> enumerating the list under a <searchIndex> tag.
>   <searchIndex>
>     <lst>E:\sample\data1</lst>
>     <lst>E:\sample\data2</lst>
>     <lst>rmi://localhost</lst>
>   </searchIndex>
> The index in the dataDir is also used as the default index of solr
> to update and query.
> When data of a document in a index specified under the <searchIndex> is
> updated, 
> that document data in the index will be deleted and data of the updated document will
be stored
> in the index in the dataDir.
> SolrRemoteSearchable (the searcher for remote access) is started from SolrCore 
> by specifying "< remoteSearcher>true</remoteSearcher >" in solrconfig.xml.(It
is registered in RMI. )
> ("" should be set when you start VM. )
> Not all of the operational cases are tested 
> because Solr has so many features. 
> Moreover, TestUnit has not been made 
> because I made this through a trial and error process. 
> Some changes are required in Lucene to execute this. 
> I need your comments on this although it might be hard without TestUnit. 
> I especially worry about the followings: 
> - Am I on the right truck about this issue?
> - Is the extent of modifying Lucene tolerable?
> - Are there any ideas to implement this feature without modifying Lucene?
> - Does this idea contribute for improving Solr?
> - This implementation may partially overlap with "Multiple Solr Cores".
>   What should be done?
> - Are there any other considerations about this issue, which I have overlooked?

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

View raw message