Mailing-List: contact solr-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of uboness@gmail.com designates
 209.85.219.217 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:content-type;
        b=rFXYVc0Xn4kqfdUPKYeKYEu5yySbCLbazBeVoGtkwBu/BWg8Un2460Ql4rilbDS5nj
         IGBW2Pw01WVeAPy/ASFsPfg8bfbAEKG7vVqq7sLfVym+a4K9dJDd7MThjxiy94Xu9Swh
         6xWchpXCoZC85lyBCVpigN35dcGjRsLDzpHDU=
Message-ID: <4B4FA18E.5040202@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:58:22 +0100
From: Uri Boness <uboness@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: SolrCloud logical shards
References: <c68e39171001140908q1511834ax4f7760b3cb12097f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c68e39171001140946j48beee73i9d8e6085c7826ec7@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c68e39171001141038y57c83056pfbfb93e5425697ca@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c68e39171001141256g7b520c7fw729e28a61227fcdc@mail.gmail.com>
 <85d3c3b61001141337w6cefda4fr19a2cd638ba75cef@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <85d3c3b61001141337w6cefda4fr19a2cd638ba75cef@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------090402060004080504030609"

--------------090402060004080504030609
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Although Jason has some valid points here, I'm with Yonik here. I do 
believe that we've gotten used to the terms "core" to represent a single 
index and "shard" to be represented by a single core. A "node" seems to 
indicate a machine or a JVM. Changing any of these (informal perhaps) 
definitions will only cause confusion. That's why I think a "slice" is a 
good solution now... first it's a new term to a new view of the index 
(logical shard AFAIK don't really exists yet) so people won't need to 
get used to it, but it's also descriptive and intuitive. I do like 
Jason's idea about having a protocol attached to the URL's.

Cheers,
Uri

Jason Rutherglen wrote:
>> But I've kind of gotten used to thinking of shards as the
>> actual physical queryable things...
>>     
>
> I think a mistake was made referring to Solr cores as shards.
> It's the same thing with 2 different names. Slices adds yet
> another name which seems to imply the same thing yet again. I'd
> rather see disambiguation here, and call them cores (partially
> because that's what's in the code and on the wiki), and cores
> only. It's a Solr specific term, it's going to be confused with
> microprocessor cores, but at least there's only one name, which
> as search people, we know creates fewer posting lists :).
>
> Logical groupings of cores can occur, which can be aptly named
> core groups. This way I can submit a query to a core group, and
> it's reasonable to assume I'm hitting N cores. Further, cores
> could point to a logical or physical entity via a URL. (As a
> side note, I've always found it odd that the shards param to
> RequestHandler lacks the protocol, what if I want to use HTTPS
> for example?).
>
> So there could be http://host/solr/core1 (physical),
> core://megacorename (logical),
> coregroup://supergreatcoregroupname (a group of cores) in the
> "shards" parameter (whose name can perhaps be changed for
> clarity in a future release). Then people can mix and match and
> we won't have many different XML elements floating around. We'd
> have a simple list of URLs that are transposed into a real
> physical network request.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Yonik Seeley
> <yonik@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
>   
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Yonik Seeley
>> <yonik@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Yonik Seeley
>>> <yonik@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> I'm actually starting to lean toward "slice" instead of "logical shard".
>>>>         
>> Alternate terminology could be "index" for the actual physical lucene
>> lindex (and also enough of the URL that unambiguously identifies it),
>> and then "shard" could be the logical entity.
>>
>> But I've kind of gotten used to thinking of shards as the actual
>> physical queryable things...
>>
>> -Yonik
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>>
>>     
>
>   

--------------090402060004080504030609--