Thank you Erick and Alex for your answers. Lots of core stuff seems to
meet my requirement but it is a problem if it does not work with Solr
Cloud. Is there an issue opened for this problem?
If I understand well, the only solution for me is to use multiple
monoinstances of Solr using transient cores and to distribute manually
the cores for my tenant (I assume the LRU mechanimn will be less
effective as it will be done per solr instance).
When you say "does NOT play nice with distributed mode", does it also
include the standard replication mecanism?
Thanks,
Regards,
Aurelien
Le 23/07/2014 17:21, Erick Erickson a écrit :
Do note that the lots of cores stuff does NOT play nice with in
distributed mode (yet).
Best,
Erick
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Alexandre Rafalovitch<arafa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Solr has some support for large number of cores, including transient
cores:http://wiki.apache.org/solr/LotsOfCores
Regards,
Alex.
Personal:http://www.outerthoughts.com/ and @arafalov
Solr resources:http://www.solr-start.com/ and @solrstart
Solr popularizers community:https://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=6713853
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Aurélien MAZOYER
<aurelien.mazo...@francelabs.com> wrote:
Hello,
We want to setup a Solr Cloud cluster in order to handle a high volume of
documents with a multi-tenant architecture. The problem is that an
application-level isolation for a tenant (using a mutual index with a
field
"customer") is not enough to fit our requirements. As a result, we need 1
collection/customer. There is more than a thousand customers and it seems
unreasonable to create thousands of collections in Solr Cloud... But as
we
know that there are less than 1 query/customer/day, we are currently
looking
for a way to passivate collection when they are not in use. Can it be a
good
idea? If yes, are there best practices to implement this? What side
effects
can we expect? Do we need to put some application-level logic on top on
the
Solr Cloud cluster to choose which collection we have to unload (and
maybe
there is something smarter (and quicker?) than simply loading/unloading
the
core when it is not in used?) ?
Thank you for your answer(s),
Aurelien
