I'm wondering if we shouldn't ditch the new term "partition" here and
just use "replica"?
In the past, we've sort of used "shard" to mean both a single physical
index, and the logical piece of the larger collection. In practice,
this ambiguity normally isn't much of a problem as it's normally clear
by context and when it's not we sometimes throw in the word "replica".
Examples: "Doc X belongs on Shard Z", "Shard Z on this node is
corrupt".
Refreshing my memory on our ZK layout, it seems like we are using
"shards" in the logical sense there.
/COLLECTIONS (v=6 children=1)
COLLECTION1 (v=0 children=1) "configName=myconf"
SHARDS (v=0 children=1)
SHARD1 (v=0 children=1)
ROGUE.LOCAL:8983_SOLR_ (v=0)
"node_name=Rogue.local:8983_solr url=http://Rogue.local:8983/solr/";
So perhaps we should just continue that, and change "partition" to
"replica" when necessary to prevent ambiguity?
-Yonik
http://www.lucene-eurocon.com - The Lucene/Solr User Conference
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
