Shawn: Managed schema is _used_ by "schemaless", but not the same thing at all. For "schemaless" (i.e. "data driven"), you need to include the update processor chains that do the guessing for you and makes use of the managed veatures to add fields to your schema.
You can also use a managed schema _without_ the processor chains that enable the "schemaless" update chains. In this you do have a static schema, with the caveat that "static" means that anyone who can post directly to Solr can change your schema, but if you allow that someone issuing managed schema API calls is the least of your worries ;). That said, I certainly understand wanting to lock down my schema, but then I'm a control freak. Best, Erick On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org> wrote: > On 12/3/2015 8:09 AM, Kelly, Frank wrote: >> Just wondering if folks have any suggestions on using Schema.xml vs. Managed >> Schema going forward. >> >> Our deployment will be >>> 3 Zk, 3 Shards, 3 replicas >>> Copies of each collection in 5 AWS regions (EBS-backed EC2 instances) >>> Planning at least 1 Billion objects indexed (currently < 100 million) >> >> I'm sure our schema.xml will have changes and fixes and just wondering which >> approach (schema.xml vs. managed) >> will be easier to deploy / maintain? > > In production, you probably want a schema that cannot change. The > managed schema that you find in the data-driven configuration will > automatically add new fields to the schema if unknown fields are > encountered in your data ... which means that if somehow a typo makes it > through your indexing process, you may not know about the problem until > later. > > With a static schema, an indexing request that has an error in a field > name will be rejected and you will receive an error, which is how I > would want Solr to behave. > > The data-driven schema is good for prototyping, but because the field > definitons that get added are just a guess by Solr, I would manually > edit the schema before going into production. Once in production I > would want to be in complete manual control of the schema. > > Thanks, > Shawn >
