You're still confusing shards (or at least mixing up the terminology) with simple replication. Shards are when you split up the index into several sub indexes and configure the sub-indexes to "know about each other". Say you have 1M docs in 2 shards. 500K of them would go on one shard and 500K on the other. But logically you have a single index of 1M docs. So the two shards have to know about each other and when you send a request to one of them, it automatically queries the other (as well as itself), collects the response and combines them, returning the top N to the requester.
This is totally different from replication. In replication (master/slave), each node has all 1M documents. Each node can work totally in isolation. An incoming request is handled by the slave without contacting any other node. If you're copying around indexes AND configuring them as though they were shards, each request will be distributed to all shards and the results collated, giving you the same doc repeatedly in your result set. If you have no access to the indexing code, you really can't go to a sharded setup. Polling is when the slaves periodically ask the master "has anything changed"? If so then the slave pulls down the changes. The polling interval is configured in solrconfig.xml _on the slave_. So let's say you index docs to the master. For some interval, until the slaves poll the master and get an updated index, the number of searchable docs on the master will be different than for the slaves. Additionally, you may have the issue of the polling intervals for the slaves being offset from one another, so for some brief interval the counts on the slaves may be different as well. Best Erick On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Jean-Sebastien Vachon <jean-sebastien.vac...@wantedanalytics.com> wrote: > Ok I see what Erick`s meant now.. Thanks. > > The original index I`m working on contains about 120k documents. Since I have > no access to the code that pushes documents into the index, I made four > copies of the same index. > > The master node contains no data at all, it simply use the data available in > its four shards. Knowing that I have 1000 documents matching the keyword > "java" on each shard I was expecting to receive 4000 documents out of my > sharded setup. There are only a few documents that are not accounted for (The > result count is about 3996 which is pretty close but not accurate). > > Right now, the index is static so there is no need for any replication so the > polling interval has no effect. > Later this week, I will configure the replication and have the indexation > modified to distribute the documents to each shard using a simple ID modulo > 4 rule. > > Were my expectations wrong about the number of documents? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Upayavira [mailto:u...@odoko.co.uk] > Sent: January-15-13 9:21 AM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: SOlr 3.5 and sharding > > He was referring to master/slave setup, where a slave will poll the master > periodically asking for index updates. That frequency is configured in > solrconfig.xml on the slave. > > So, you are saying that you have, say 1m documents in your master index. > You then copy your index to four other boxes. At that point you have 1m > documents on each of those four. Eventually, you'll delete some docs, so'd > you have 250k on each. You're wondering, before the deletes, you're not > seeing 1m docs on each of your instances. > > Or are you wondering why you're not seeing 1m docs when you do a distributed > query across all for of these boxes? > > Is that correct? > > Upayavira > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013, at 02:11 PM, Jean-Sebastien Vachon wrote: >> Hi Erick, >> >> Thanks for your comments but I am migrating an existing index (single >> instance) to a sharded setup and currently I have no access to the >> code involved in the indexation process. That`s why I made a simple >> copy of the index on each shards. >> >> In the end, the data will be distributed among all shards. >> >> I was just curious to know why I had not the expected number of >> documents with my four shards. >> >> Can you elaborate on this "polling interval" thing? I am pretty sure >> I never eared about this... >> >> Regards >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerick...@gmail.com] >> Sent: January-15-13 8:00 AM >> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org >> Subject: Re: SOlr 3.5 and sharding >> >> You're confusing shards and slaves here. Shards are splitting a >> logical index amongst N machines, where each machine contains a >> portion of the index. In that setup, you have to configure the slaves >> to know about the other shards, and the incoming query has to be >> distributed amongst all the shards to find all the docs. >> >> In your case, since you're really replicating (rather than sharding), >> you only have to query _one_ slave, the query doesn't need to be distributed. >> >> So pull all the sharding stuff out of your config files, put a load >> balancer in front of your slaves and only send the request to one of >> them would be the place I'd start. >> >> Also, don't be at all surprised if the number of hits from the >> _master_ (which you shouldn't be searching, BTW) is different than the >> slaves, there's the polling interval to consider. >> >> Best >> Erick >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Jean-Sebastien Vachon < >> jean-sebastien.vac...@wantedanalytics.com> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > I`m setting up a small Sorl setup consisting of 1 master node and 4 >> > shards. For now, all four shards contains the exact same data. When >> > I perform a query on each individual shards for the word `java` I am >> > receiving the same number of docs (as expected). However, when I am >> > going through the master node using the shards parameters, the >> > number of results is slightly off by a few documents. There is >> > nothing special in my setup so I`m looking for hints on why I am >> > getting this problem >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> >> ----- >> Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. >> Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr >> Version: 2013.0.2890 / Base de données virale: 2638/6032 - Date: >> 14/01/2013 > > ----- > Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. > Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr > Version: 2013.0.2890 / Base de données virale: 2638/6032 - Date: 14/01/2013
