I agree with the 'more mature' analysis, but surely you can use 4.0 in a 3.x style without greater difficulty, no?
Upayavira On Fri, Jan 4, 2013, at 07:35 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: > Hi, > > If you don't need to shard your index and don't need NRT search Solr 3.x > is > much simpler to operate and is more mature. > > Otis > Solr & ElasticSearch Support > http://sematext.com/ > On Jan 4, 2013 7:08 AM, "Dikchant Sahi" <contacts...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > As someone in the forum correctly said, if all Solr releases were > > evolutionary Solr 4.0 is revolutionary. It has lots of improvement over the > > previous releases like NoSql features, atomic updates, cloud features and > > lot more. > > > > Solr 4.0 would be the right migration I believe. > > > > Can someone in the forum provide a reason to migrate to 3.6.2 and not 4.0 > > > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:16 PM, vijeshnair <vijeshkn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > We are starting a new e-com application from this month onwards, for > > which > > > I > > > am trying to identify the right SOLR release. We were using 3.4 in our > > > previous project, bu I have read in multiple blogs and forums about the > > > improvements that SOLR 4 has in terms of efficient memory management, > > less > > > OOMs etc. So my question would be, can I start using SOLR 4 for my new > > > project ? Why is it that Apache keeping both 3.6.2 and 4.0 releases in > > the > > > downloads? Are there any major changes in 4.0 comparing to 3.x, so that I > > > should study those changes before getting in to 4.0 ? Please help, so > > that > > > I can propose 4.0 to my team. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Vijesh Nair > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > View this message in context: > > > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-3-6-2-or-4-0-tp4030527.html > > > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > >
