Mailing-List: contact solr-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of markrmiller@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.220.171 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
From: Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <54liphsk4fqpauv064hy0c2s.1357325350302@email.android.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 13:55:09 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CBC62ADD-2A5D-4F8D-BEC1-70289013E766@gmail.com>
References: <54liphsk4fqpauv064hy0c2s.1357325350302@email.android.com>
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org

Currently a SolrCore is 1:1 with a low level Lucene index. There is no =
reason that needs to alway be that way. It's possible that we may at =
some point add built in micro sharding support that means a SolrCore =
could have multiple underlying Lucene indexes. Or we may not.

- Mark


On Jan 4, 2013, at 1:49 PM, darren <darren@ontrenet.com> wrote:

> Good point. Agree.
>=20
>=20
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
>=20
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Upayavira <uv@odoko.co.uk>=20
> Date: =20
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org=20
> Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...=20
>=20
> Using your terminology, I'd say core is a physical solr term, and =
index
> is a pysical lucene term. A collection or a shard is a logical solr
> term.
>=20
> Upayavira
>=20
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013, at 06:28 PM, darren wrote:
>> My understanding is core is a logical solr term. Index is a physical
>> lucene term. A solr core is backed by a physical lucene index. One =
index
>> per core. Solr team can correct me if its not accurate. :)
>>=20
>>=20
>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
>>=20
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Alexandre Rafalovitch <arafalov@gmail.com>=20
>> Date: =20
>> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org=20
>> Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...=20
>>  =20
>> Can I just start by saying that this was AMAZING. :-) When I asked =
the
>> question, I certainly did not expect this level of details.
>>=20
>> And I vote on the cake diagram for WIKI as well. Perhaps, two with =
the
>> first one showing the trivial collapsed state of single
>> collection/shard/replica/core. The trivial one will also help to =
explain
>> why the example is now called 'collection1'.
>>=20
>> I think I followed everything, except for just added term of 'index'.
>> Isn't
>> that the same as 'core'? Or can we have several indexes in one core?
>>=20
>> Regards,
>>    Alex.
>> Personal blog: http://blog.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)
>>=20
>>=20
>> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:11 AM, darren <darren@ontrenet.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>> This is the containment hierarchy i understand but includes both =
physical
>>> and logical.
>>>=20
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: darren <darren@ontrenet.com>
>>> Date:
>>> To: =
darren@ontrenet.com,yonik@lucidworks.com,solr-user@lucene.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
>>>=20
>>> Actually. Node/collection/shard/replica/core/index
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: darren <darren@ontrenet.com>
>>> Date:
>>> To: yonik@lucidworks.com,solr-user@lucene.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs...
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Agreed. But for completeness can it be =
node/collection/shard/replica/core?
>>>=20
>>>=20