Yeah that looks like the _source that elasticsearch has.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Michael Joyner wrote:
> Have a "store only" text field that contains a serialized (json?) of the
> master object for deserilization as part of the results parsing if you are
> wanting to save a DB lookup.
>
Have a "store only" text field that contains a serialized (json?) of the
master object for deserilization as part of the results parsing if you
are wanting to save a DB lookup.
I would still store everything in a DB though to have a "master" copy of
everthing.
On 11/18/2016 04:45 AM, Dorian
Sure. And the people do it. Especially for their first deployment. I
have some prototypes/proof-of-concepts like that myself.
Just later don't say you didn't ask and we didn't tell :-)
Regards,
Alex.
Solr Example reading group is starting November 2016, join us at
http://j.mp/SolrERG
New
@alex
That makes sense, but it can be ~fixed by just storing every field that you
need.
@Walter
Many of those things are missing from many nosql dbs yet they're used as
source of data.
As long as the backup is "point in time", meaning consistent timestamp
across all shards it ~should be ok for man
I agree, it is a bad idea.
Solr is missing nearly everything you want in a repository, because it is
not designed to be a repository.
Does not have:
* access control
* transactions
* transactional backup
* dump and load
* schema migration
* versioning
And so on.
Also, I’m glad to share a one-l
I've heard of people doing it but it is not recommended.
One of the biggest implementation breakthroughs is that - after the
initial learning curve - you will start mapping your input data to
signals. Those signals will not look very much like your original data
and therefore are not terribly suit
Hi,
Anyone use solr for source-of-data with no `normal` db (of course with
normal backups/replication) ?
Are there any drawbacks ?
Thank You
