HTTP 2 and whatever that Google's new protocol is are both into
pipelining over the same connection (HTTP 1.1 too, but not as well).
So, I feel, the right approach would be instead to check whether
SolrJ/Jetty can handle those and not worry about it within Solr
itself.

Regards,
   Alex.
----
http://www.solr-start.com/ - Resources for Solr users, new and experienced


On 22 November 2016 at 04:58, Walter Underwood <wun...@wunderwood.org> wrote:
> A agree that dispatching multiple queries is better.
>
> With multiple queries, we need to deal with multiple result codes, multiple 
> timeouts, and so on. Then write tests for all that stuff.
>
> wunder
> Walter Underwood
> wun...@wunderwood.org
> http://observer.wunderwood.org/  (my blog)
>
>
>> On Nov 21, 2016, at 9:55 AM, Christian Ortner <chris.ort...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> there has been an JIRA issue[0] for a long time that contains some patches
>> for multiple releases of Solr that implement this functionality. It's a
>> different topic if those patches still work in recent versions, and the
>> issue has been resolved as a won't fix.
>>
>> Personally, I think starting multiple queries asynchronously right after
>> each other has little disadvantages over a batching mechanism.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1093
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Mikhail Khludnev <m...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>> There is nothing like that in Solr.
>>>
>>> On Thursday, November 17, 2016, Dorian Hoxha <dorian.ho...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I couldn't find anything in core for "multiple separate queries in 1 http
>>>> request" like elasticsearch
>>>> <https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/
>>>> current/search-multi-search.html>
>>>> ? I found this
>>>> <http://blog.nbostech.com/2015/09/solr-search-conponent-
>>> multiple-queries/>
>>>> blog-post though I thought there is/should/would be something in core ?
>>>>
>>>> Thank You
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sincerely yours
>>> Mikhail Khludnev
>>>
>

Reply via email to