Hi Shawn, Thanks for your input.
Having spent some time today figuring out the path to upgrade, I concluded that we have been using what is (and was in solr 3 and possibly earlier) called a "core". A group of two cores (with different schemas) we (probably mistakenly) referred to as a shard. That is, the shard was a larger semantic "unit" or chunk of data that would repeat itself in configuration along the time axis. Each shard would hold data from a particular time period. What's a bit confusing, is that, at least in my vocabulary, a collection is similar to what the word "group" means. The confusion stems from the fact that in a "core config" one defines a "collection". But, if we imagine a series of cores created with the same schema, they could be united into a "group" or a "collection". Although to me, as a user (if the above explanation holds of course) a collection is an internal implementation "detail". On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Shawn Heisey <s...@elyograg.org> wrote: > On 7/16/2013 12:41 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote: > >> Search this mailing list and you will find a very long discussion about >> the >> terminology and confusion around it.My contribution to that was the crude >> picture trying to explain it: http://bit.ly/1aqohUf . Maybe it will help. >> >> If you don't want longer URL, do use solr.xml and use @adminPath and >> @defaultCoreName >> parameters. But you don't need the rest. >> > > I'm relatively sure that defaultCoreName isn't there if you use the new > core discovery mode that is default in the 4.4 example. This new mode will > be the only option in 5.0. The old mode will continue to be supported > throughout all 4.x versions. > > I think getting rid of defaultCoreName is the right move - Solr has been > multicore in the standard example for quite some time. Accessing Solr > without a corename in the URL is a source of confusion for users when they > venture outside the collection1 core that comes with the default example. > > IMHO, the additional capability and confusion inherent with SolrCloud > makes it even more important that the user include a collection/core name > when making their request. > > Thanks, > Shawn > >
