[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3843?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13588507#comment-13588507
]
Robert Muir commented on SOLR-3843:
-----------------------------------
{quote}
Have you looked at ElasticSearch? Its very tiny (20 MB alltogether), no useless
analyzers for every language on earth. If you need kumoroji, enter:
bin/plugin -install elasticsearch/elasticsearch-analysis-kuromoji
This downloads the plugin and installs it into the ES lib folder. This is how
it should work, instead of one horrible huge war file.
{quote}
But I'm not sure this is a good thing. I did some quick google searches and
found:
* http://www.sentric.ch/blog/why-we-chose-solr-4-0-instead-of-elasticsearch
"Better language support out of the box"
*
http://blog.sematext.com/2012/09/04/solr-vs-elasticsearch-part-2-data-handling/
"Apache Solr 4.0 beta has the advantage over ElasticSearch because it can
handle more languages out of the box"
I think both search servers are good for the lucene ecosystem and its not my
intent to stir up some battle about which is better.
I'm guessing that you can access all of the lucene analyzers from either one,
but the *impression* from *packaging* is that Solr
is better.
Lets not make this same mistake with codecs!
Most users probably could care less about SPI etc (this is all implementation
details). They do care about being able to
search different languages and index their content with the appropriate data
structures.
I'm happy to open an issue to refactor our build and tests to internally
reflect the fact that, using solr-core as a library for example, you dont
technically need certain jars.
But can we separate this from *packaging*, at least for now? It would be
depressing to me to see articles like this that say solr has bad support for
flexible indexing.
> Add lucene-codecs to Solr libs?
> -------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-3843
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3843
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Wish
> Affects Versions: 4.0
> Reporter: Adrien Grand
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 4.2, 5.0
>
> Attachments: SOLR-3843.patch, SOLR-3843.patch, SOLR-3843.patch
>
>
> Solr gives the ability to its users to select the postings format to use on a
> per-field basis but only Lucene40PostingsFormat is available by default
> (unless users add lucene-codecs to the Solr lib directory). Maybe we should
> add lucene-codecs to Solr libs (I mean in the WAR file) so that people can
> try our non-default postings formats with minimum effort?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
