Currently a SolrCore is 1:1 with a low level Lucene index. There is no reason that needs to alway be that way. It's possible that we may at some point add built in micro sharding support that means a SolrCore could have multiple underlying Lucene indexes. Or we may not.
- Mark On Jan 4, 2013, at 1:49 PM, darren <dar...@ontrenet.com> wrote: > Good point. Agree. > > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> > Date: > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs... > > Using your terminology, I'd say core is a physical solr term, and index > is a pysical lucene term. A collection or a shard is a logical solr > term. > > Upayavira > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013, at 06:28 PM, darren wrote: >> My understanding is core is a logical solr term. Index is a physical >> lucene term. A solr core is backed by a physical lucene index. One index >> per core. Solr team can correct me if its not accurate. :) >> >> >> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Alexandre Rafalovitch <arafa...@gmail.com> >> Date: >> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs... >> >> Can I just start by saying that this was AMAZING. :-) When I asked the >> question, I certainly did not expect this level of details. >> >> And I vote on the cake diagram for WIKI as well. Perhaps, two with the >> first one showing the trivial collapsed state of single >> collection/shard/replica/core. The trivial one will also help to explain >> why the example is now called 'collection1'. >> >> I think I followed everything, except for just added term of 'index'. >> Isn't >> that the same as 'core'? Or can we have several indexes in one core? >> >> Regards, >> Alex. >> Personal blog: http://blog.outerthoughts.com/ >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexandrerafalovitch >> - Time is the quality of nature that keeps events from happening all at >> once. Lately, it doesn't seem to be working. (Anonymous - via GTD book) >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:11 AM, darren <dar...@ontrenet.com> wrote: >> >>> This is the containment hierarchy i understand but includes both physical >>> and logical. >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: darren <dar...@ontrenet.com> >>> Date: >>> To: dar...@ontrenet.com,yo...@lucidworks.com,solr-user@lucene.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs... >>> >>> Actually. Node/collection/shard/replica/core/index >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: darren <dar...@ontrenet.com> >>> Date: >>> To: yo...@lucidworks.com,solr-user@lucene.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: Terminology question: Core vs. Collection vs... >>> >>> >>> Agreed. But for completeness can it be node/collection/shard/replica/core? >>> >>>
