Erick Erickson [erickerick...@gmail.com] wrote: > I can't disagree. You bring up some of the points that make me _extremely_ > reluctant to try to get this in to 5.x though. 6.0 at the earliest I should > think.
Ignoring the magic 2b number for a moment, I think the overall question is whether or not single shards should perform well in the hundreds of millions of documents range. The alternative is more shards, but it is quite an explicit process to handle shard-juggling. From an end-user perspective, the underlying technology matters little: Whatever the choice, it should be possible to install "something" on a machine and expect it to scale within the hardware limitations without much ado. - Toke Eskildsen
