yo...@lucidimagination.com
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Tue, May 25, 2010 8:59:29 AM
Subject: Re: Solr updateRequestHandler and performance vs. atomicity
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:10 AM,
ymailto=mailto:karl.wri...@nokia.com;
href=mailto:karl.wri...@nokia.com;karl.wri...@nokia.com wrote
Willnauer [simon.willna...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 4:29 PM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Solr updateRequestHandler and performance vs. atomicity
Hi Karl,
what are you describing seems to be a good usecase for something like
a message queue where you push a document
Message-
From: ext Mark Miller [mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 4:40 PM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Solr updateRequestHandler and performance vs. atomicity
Indexing a doc won't be as fast as raw disk IO. But you won't be doing
just raw disk IO
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:10 AM, karl.wri...@nokia.com wrote:
In particular, it would be nice to be able to post documents in such a way
that you can guarantee that the document is permanently in Solr’s queue,
safe in the event of a Solr restart, etc., even if the document has not yet
been
Sounds like a distributed two phase commit is needed.
Would http://activemq.apache.org/ do the job?
If it does, camel (split off of activemq) has a lucene component
that could be of interest, too.
Regards,
Paul Elschot
Op dinsdag 25 mei 2010 14:59:29 schreef Yonik Seeley:
On Mon, May 24, 2010
On 5/24/10 3:10 PM, karl.wri...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi all,
It seems to me that the “commit” logic in the Solr updateRequestHandler
(or wherever the logic is actually located) conflates two different
semantics. One semantic is what you need to do to make the index process
perform well. The other
.
-Original Message-
From: ext Mark Miller [mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 3:33 PM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Solr updateRequestHandler and performance vs. atomicity
On 5/24/10 3:10 PM, karl.wri...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi all,
It seems to me that the commit
@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Solr updateRequestHandler and performance vs. atomicity
On 5/24/10 3:10 PM, karl.wri...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi all,
It seems to me that the commit logic in the Solr updateRequestHandler
(or wherever the logic is actually located) conflates two different
semantics
updateRequestHandler and performance vs. atomicity
On 5/24/10 3:10 PM, karl.wri...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi all,
It seems to me that the commit logic in the Solr updateRequestHandler
(or wherever the logic is actually located) conflates two different
semantics. One semantic is what you need to do to make
-
From: ext Mark Miller [mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 4:40 PM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Solr updateRequestHandler and performance vs. atomicity
Indexing a doc won't be as fast as raw disk IO. But you won't be doing
just raw disk IO to guarantee acceptance
10 matches
Mail list logo
