On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 12:59 AM,
wrote:
>
> >Just wondering if folks have any suggestions on using Schema.xml vs.
> >Managed Schema going forward.
> >
We are using loosely typed languages (Perl and Javascript), and a loosely
typed DB (CouchDB). This is
Actually, I rather agree with your colleagues, but then I'm something
of a curmudgeon.
More accurately, unless you _strictly_ control the input documents,
you never know what you have in your index. I'd rather have docs fail
indexing than be indexed with, say, typos in the field names
FWIW,
Not that hard to setup a cron and diff job and email when the diff is
not-empty. A sort-of "is that what you expected" report.
But, for myself, I also prefer schema and then managed. I do not like
schemaless mode, even for development. Instead, I prefer to do
"dynamicField *".
P.s. I am thinking
solr-user <solr-user@lucene.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Solr 5: Schema.xml vs. Managed Schema - which is advisable?
Actually, I rather agree with your colleagues, but then I'm something of a
curmudgeon.
More accurately, unless you _strictly_ control the input documents, you never
know what
quot;schemaless", but with both Linked Data and ES, it is a way
> to get started quickly - there are still advantages to using a schema.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerick...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 3:16 PM
> To: sol
On 12/3/2015 8:09 AM, Kelly, Frank wrote:
> Just wondering if folks have any suggestions on using Schema.xml vs. Managed
> Schema going forward.
>
> Our deployment will be
>> 3 Zk, 3 Shards, 3 replicas
>> Copies of each collection in 5 AWS regions (EBS-backed EC2 instances)
>> Planning at least
Shawn:
Managed schema is _used_ by "schemaless", but not the same thing at
all. For "schemaless" (i.e. "data driven"), you need to include the
update processor chains that do the guessing for you and makes use of
the managed veatures to add fields to your schema.
You can also use a managed
Just wondering if folks have any suggestions on using Schema.xml vs. Managed
Schema going forward.
Our deployment will be
> 3 Zk, 3 Shards, 3 replicas
> Copies of each collection in 5 AWS regions (EBS-backed EC2 instances)
> Planning at least 1 Billion objects indexed (currently < 100 million)
I’ve never used the managed schema, so I’m probably biased, but I’ve never
seen much of a point to the Schema API.
I need to make changes sometimes to solrconfig.xml, in addition to
schema.xml and other config files, and there’s no API for those, so my
process has been like:
1. Put the entire
It Depends (tm).
Managed Schema is way cool if you have a front end that lets you
manipulate the schema via a browser or other program. There's really
no other way to deal with changing the schema from a browser without
allowing uploading xml files, which is a security problem. Trust me on
this
They are different beasts, but I bet on the managed schema winning in
the long run.
With the bulk API, you can post a heap of fields/etc in one go, so
basically, rather than pushing the schema to Zookeeper, you push it to
Solr.
Look at Solr 5.4 when it comes out shortly. It'll change the way
My experience is, once managed-schema is created, then schema.xml even if
present is ignored. When both are present, you will get a warning in the Solr
log.
I have stopped using schema.xml. Actually, I use it once, start Solr and after
it generates managed-schema, I export it and pretty much
12 matches
Mail list logo