Solr is not designed to be a repository, so don’t use it as a repository.
If you want to keep the original copy of your data, put it in something designed to do that. It could be a database, it could be files in Amazon S3. wunder Walter Underwood wun...@wunderwood.org http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog) > On Nov 24, 2016, at 3:11 AM, Prateek Jain J <prateek.j.j...@ericsson.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Walter, > > With the solr support to sharding, is the storage capability still in > question? Or we are only talking about features like transaction logs, which > can be used to re-build database. > > Regards, > Prateek Jain > > -----Original Message----- > From: Walter Underwood [mailto:wun...@wunderwood.org] > Sent: 24 November 2016 05:14 AM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: SOLR vs mongdb > > Sure. Someone sends an HTTP request that deletes all the content. I’m glad to > share the curl request. > > Or you can put content in with fields that are indexed but not stored. Then > the content is “gone” as soon as you send it to Solr. > > Or you change the schema and need to reindex, but don’t have copies of the > original content. > > Or there there is some disk problem and some docs are not in the backup > because the backups aren’t transactional. > > I’m sure there are other situations. > > wunder > Walter Underwood > wun...@wunderwood.org > http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog) > > >> On Nov 23, 2016, at 9:00 PM, Kris Musshorn <mussho...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> Will someone please give me a detailed scenario where solr content could >> "disappear"? >> >> Disappear means what exactly? >> >> TIA, >> Kris >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Walter Underwood [mailto:wun...@wunderwood.org] >> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 7:47 PM >> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org >> Subject: Re: SOLR vs mongdb >> >> Well, I didn’t actually recommend MongoDB as a repository. :-) >> >> If you want transactions and search, buy MarkLogic. I worked there for two >> years, and that is serious non-muggle technology. >> >> wunder >> Walter Underwood >> wun...@wunderwood.org >> http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog) >> >> >>> On Nov 23, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch <arafa...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Actually, you need to be ok that your content will disappear when you >>> use MongoDB as well.... :-( >>> >>> But I understand what you were trying to say. >>> ---- >>> http://www.solr-start.com/ - Resources for Solr users, new and >>> experienced >>> >>> >>> On 24 November 2016 at 11:34, Walter Underwood <wun...@wunderwood.org> >>> wrote: >>>> The choice is simple. Are you OK if all your content disappears and you >>>> need to reload? >>>> If so, use Solr. If not, you need some kind of repository. It can be files >>>> in Amazon S3. >>>> But Solr is not designed to preserve your data. >>>> >>>> wunder >>>> Walter Underwood >>>> wun...@wunderwood.org >>>> http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog) >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 23, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch <arafa...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Solr supports automatic detection of content types for new fields. >>>>> That was - unfortunately - named as schemaless mode. It still is >>>>> typed under the covers and has limitations. Such as needing all >>>>> automatically created fields to be multivalued (by the default >>>>> schemaless definition). >>>>> >>>>> MongoDB is better about actually storing content, especially nested >>>>> content. Solr can store content, but that's not what it is about. >>>>> You can totally turn off all the stored flags in Solr and return >>>>> just document ids, while storing the content in MongoDB. >>>>> >>>>> You can search in Mongo and you can store content in Solr, so for >>>>> simple use cases you can use either one to serve both cause. But >>>>> you can also pound nails with a brick and make holes with a hammer. >>>>> >>>>> Oh, and do not read this as me endorsing MongoDB. I would probably >>>>> look at Postgress with JSON columns instead, as it is more reliable >>>>> and feature rich. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Alex. >>>>> ---- >>>>> http://www.solr-start.com/ - Resources for Solr users, new and >>>>> experienced >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 24 November 2016 at 07:34, Prateek Jain J >>>>> <prateek.j.j...@ericsson.com> wrote: >>>>>> SOLR also supports, schemaless behaviour. and my question is same that, >>>>>> why and where should we prefer mongodb. Web search didn’t helped me on >>>>>> this. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Prateek Jain >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Rohit Kanchan [mailto:rohitkan2...@gmail.com] >>>>>> Sent: 23 November 2016 07:07 PM >>>>>> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: SOLR vs mongdb >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Prateek, >>>>>> >>>>>> I think you are talking about two different animals. Solr(actually >>>>>> embedded >>>>>> lucene) is actually a search engine where you can use different features >>>>>> like faceting, highlighting etc but it is a document store where for >>>>>> each text it does create an Inverted index and map that to documents. >>>>>> Mongodb is also document store but I think it adds basic search >>>>>> capability. This is my understanding. We are using mongo for temporary >>>>>> storage and I think it is good for that where you want to store a key >>>>>> value document in a collection without any static schema. In Solr you >>>>>> need to define your schema. In solr you can define dynamic fields too. >>>>>> This is all my understanding. >>>>>> >>>>>> - >>>>>> Rohit >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Prateek Jain J < >>>>>> prateek.j.j...@ericsson.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have started to use mongodb and solr recently. Please feel free >>>>>>> to correct me where my understanding is not upto the mark: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Solr is indexing engine but it stores both data and indexes in >>>>>>> same directory. Although we can select fields to store/persist in >>>>>>> solr via schema.xml. But in nutshell, it's not possible to >>>>>>> distinguish between data and indexes like, I can't remove all >>>>>>> indexes and still have persisted data with SOLR. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Solr indexing capabilities are far better than any other nosql >>>>>>> db >>>>>>> like mongodb etc. like faceting, weighted search. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. Both support scalability via sharding. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 4. We can have architecture where data is stored in separate db >>>>>>> like >>>>>>> mongodb or mysql. SOLR can connect with db and index data (in SOLR). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I tried googling for question "solr vs mongodb" and there are >>>>>>> various threads on sites like stackoverflow. But I still can't >>>>>>> understand why would anyone go for mongodb and when for SOLR >>>>>>> (except for features like faceting, may be CAP theorem). Are >>>>>>> there any specific use-cases for choosing NoSQL databases like mongoDB >>>>>>> over SOLR? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Prateek Jain >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >> >> >
