lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Meraj A. Khan" <>
Subject Re: Customizing Solr; Where to draw the line?
Date Mon, 09 Jun 2014 02:42:18 GMT
I hane gone with approach #2 to avoid latency issues as well, specifically
for spellcheck related functionality.I have not gone onto to SolrCloud yet
,so I cannot comment on the distributed search part.
On Jun 8, 2014 10:38 PM, "Phanindra R" <> wrote:

> Hi,
> We have decided to migrate from Lucene 3.x to latest Solr. A lot of
> architectural discussions are going on. There are two possible approaches.
> Please note that our customer-facing app (or any client) and Search are
> hosted on different machines.
> *1) Have a clean architecture*
>     - Solr takes care of customized search only.
>    - We certainly have to override some filtering, scoring,etc.
>     - There will be an intermediary search-app that
>    - receives queries
>       - does a/b testing assignments, and other non-search stuff.
>       - does query expansion / rewriting (to avoid every Solr shard doing
>       that)
>       - transforms query into Solr syntax and uses Solr's http API to
>       consume it.
>       - returns the response to customer-facing app or whatever the client
>       is.
>    The problem with this approach is the additional layer and the latency
> between search-app and solr. The client of search has to make an API call,
> across the network, to the intermediary search-app which in turns makes
> another Http API call to Solr.
> *2) Customize Solr to the full extent*
>    - Do all the crazy stuff within Solr.
>    - We can literally create a new url and register a handler class to
>    process that. With some limitations, we should be able to do almost
>    anything.
>      The benefit of this approach is that it obviates the additional layer
> and the latency. However, I see a lot of long-term problems like hard to
> upgrade Solr's version, Dev flexibility (usage of Spring, Hib, etc.).
> How about a distributed search? Where do above approaches stand?
> I understand that this is a subjective question. It'd be helpful if you
> could share your thoughts and experiences.
> Thanks.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message