Yes, you can have multiple indexes with solrcloud, same as with stand alone. We call them collections.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Daniel Brügge < daniel.brue...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > thanks for the answer. > > the plan is that in lots of queries I just need faceted values and > don't even do a fulltext search. > And on the other hand I need the fulltext search for exactly one > task in my application, which is search documents and returning them. > Here no faceting at all is need, but only filtering with fields, > which i also use for the other queries. > So if 95% of the queries don't use the fulltext i thought it would > make sense to split them. > > Your suggestion to have one main master index and several slave indexes > sounds promising. Is it possible to have this replication in SolrCloud e.g > with different kind of schemas etc? > > Thanks. Daniel > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Chris Hostetter > <hossman_luc...@fucit.org>wrote: > > > > > : My thought was, that I could separate indexes. So for the facet queries > > : where I don't need > > : fulltext search (so also no indexed fulltext field) I can use a > > completely > > : new setup of a > > : sharded Solr which doesn't include the indexed fulltext, so the index > is > > : kept small containing > > : just the few fields I have. > > : > > : And for the fulltext queries I have the current Solr configuration > which > > : includes as mentioned > > : above all the fields incl. the index fulltext field. > > : > > : Is this a normal way of handling these requirements. That there are > > : different kind of > > : Solr configurations for the different needs? Because the huge > redundancy > > > > It's definitley doable -- one thing i'm not clear on is why, if your > > "faceting" queries don't care about the full text, you would need to > leave > > those small fields in your "full index" ... is your plan to do > > "faceting" and drill down using the smaller index, but then display docs > > resulting from those queries by using the same "fq" params when querying > > the "full index" ? > > > > if so then it should work, if not -- you may not need those fields in > that > > index. > > > > In general there is nothing wrong with having multiple indexes to solve > > multiple usecases -- an index is usually an inverted denormalization of > > some structured source data designed for fast queries/retrieval. If > there > > are multiple distinct ways you want to query/retrieve data that don't > lend > > themselves to the same denormalization, there's nothing wrong with > > multiple denormalizations. > > > > Something else to consider is an approach i've used many times: having a > > single index, but using special purpose replicas. You can have a master > > index that you update at the rate of change, one set of slaves that are > > used for one type of query pattern (faceting on X, Y, and Z for example) > > and a differnet set of slaves that are used for a different query pattern > > (faceting on A, B, and C) so each set of slaves gets a higher cahce hit > > rate then if the queries were randomized across all machines > > > > -Hoss > > > -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com
