things positive for solr. - mature and stable - lots of documentation - a swiss army knife and can be used for a LOT of things, especially if you are manipulating a lot of text. - the query language is easier to use (imho.. but i've been using solr for years, so I am biased) - lots of people know it - fast caching - faceting
cons for solr. - hard to update a single field (you need to fetch & re-insert the entire row) - commits/optimizes can slow things down to a crawl - can't store structured data easily. (for example a blog post has tags which have both a key and a value). - scalability isn't as easy as cassandra. sharding works, but it requires a lot of manual effort - it's easy to get started and get something running, but if you need to do something out of the ordinary, it gets hard fast. I think cassandra is more flexible to do ordinary things that don't involve text-matching. - replication isn't instant. (this is changing.. also look at zoie which may help). of course, if you tell us what your trying to do, I can be more specific. FWIW.. we use SOLR for some of our news-content (see love.com and newsrunner.com) and it works fast enough for us. We have a incoming doc rate of about 8-10 news articles/second. On Jan 8, 2010, at 5:43 AM, Nathan McCall wrote: > Agreed that there is not much to go on here in the original question. > I will say that we very recently found a good fit with Solr and > Cassandra in how we deal with a very heavy write volume of news > article data. Cassandra is excellent with write throughput and high > availability, but our search use cases are with time-dependent news > content, so we need lots of term proximity, faceting and ordering > functionality. > > We probably could store everything in Solr, but the above approach > will allow us to make articles immediately available in a > fault-tolerant manner while being able to efficiently send batches at > regular intervals to Solr and therefore scale out our ingestion of > news articles a little smoother. Full disclosure: I am still getting > my head around the innards of Solr replication and clustering, but so > far I feel like we made a good choice. > > Hopefully the above will be helpful to folks during their evaluations. > > Cheers, > -Nate > > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Joseph Bowman <bowman.jos...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> I have to agree with Tatu. If you're struggling to find reasons to validate >> that Cassandra is the better choice for your task than Solr, then perhaps >> Solr is the correct choice. I kind of went through the same thing recently, >> struggled to make Cassandra fit what I was doing, then realized I was doing >> it wrong and moved to MongoDB. >> Cassandra is great at what it tries to accomplish, which is managing >> gigantic datasets in a distributed way. The question is, is that really what >> you need? >> >> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Tatu Saloranta <tsalora...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 3:16 AM, Richard Grossman <richie...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> This message is little different than support. >>>> I'm confronted to problem where people want to change Cassandra with >>>> Solr >>>> server. I really think that our problem is a great case for cassandra >>>> but I >>>> need more arguments. >>>> >>>> So please if you've some time just put some idea why to use cassandra >>>> instead solr. >>> >>> Solution is generally applicable to a problem... so what is the (main) use >>> case? >>> >>> That would make it easier to find arguments for or against proposed >>> solution. >>> >>> -+ Tatu +- >> >> -- Ian Holsman i...@holsman.net
