This is perfectly fine. Of course, you lose any relational model. If you don't have or don't need one, why not.
It used to be the case that backups of live Lucene indices were hard, so people preferred having a RDBMS be the primary data source, the one they know how to back up and maintain well. Otis -- Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch ----- Original Message ---- > From: Ian Connor <ian.con...@gmail.com> > To: solr <solr-user@lucene.apache.org> > Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 3:37:55 PM > Subject: solr as the data store > > Hi All, > > Is anyone using Solr (and thus the lucene index) as there database store. > > Up to now, we have been using a database to build Solr from. However, given > that lucene already keeps the stored data intact, and that rebuilding from > solr to solr can be very fast, the need for the separate database does not > seem so necessary. > > It seems totally possible to maintain just the solr shards and treat them as > the database (backups, redundancy, etc are already built right in). The idea > that we would need to rebuild from scratch seems unlikely and the speed > boost by using solr shards for data massaging and reindexing seems very > appealing. > > Has anyone else thought about this or done this and ran into problems that > caused them to go back to a seperate database model? Is there a critical > need you can think is missing? > > -- > Regards, > > Ian Connor
