You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to solr-user@lucene.apache.org by Herman Kiefus <he...@angieslist.com> on 2011/08/17 21:54:31 UTC
'Stable' 4.0 version
My origination uses Solr 4 because of our geospatial requirements. What insight can you share (if any) regarding moving forward to a later nightly build? Or, for those of you using 4.0 in a Production setting, when is it that you move ahead?
Re: 'Stable' 4.0 version
Posted by Tomás Fernández Löbbe <to...@gmail.com>.
Version number's are confusing, no doubt's. 4.x is currently on trunk (and
was not released yet). 3.x is a maintained branch. There has been three
releases from 3.x branch: 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3.
Most of the spatial search stuff is available since 3.1 (includding geoflit,
geodist and the location field type),
If you decide to go with trunk (a.k.a, Solr 4), I would use a more recent
revision of it. Much has changed since December last year.
Tomás
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Herman Kiefus <he...@angieslist.com>wrote:
> I should say I'm running: Solr Specification Version:
> 4.0.0.2010.12.10.08.54.56 and by the looks of the version number I'm running
> something from Dec 12 of last year.
>
> Tomas: geofilt and geodist() are supported in 3.3? Along with the location
> and point type? Quite frankly, 1.3/1.4, 3.3, 4.0 all confuse me. I just
> had our operations personnel install versions until I got the needed
> functionality.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tomás Fernández Löbbe [mailto:tomasflobbe@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 5:12 PM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: 'Stable' 4.0 version
>
> As far as I know, Solr's trunk is pretty stable, so you shoundl't have many
> problems with it if you test it correctly. Lucid's search platform is built
> upon the trunk (
> http://www.lucidimagination.com/products/lucidworks-search-platform/enterprise
> ).
> The one thing I would be concerned is with the index format. It might
> change in an incompatible way from one revision to the next one, so if
> rebuilding your index is complicated or takes too long this can be a
> problem.
>
> If your version election is based on the geospatial stuff, why don't you
> use Solr 3.3 release? It already contains those features.
>
> Tomás
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Jaeger, Jay - DOT <Jay.Jaeger@dot.wi.gov
> >wrote:
>
> > > geospatial requirements
> >
> > Looking at your email address, no surprise there. 8^)
> >
> > > What insight can you share (if any) regarding moving forward to a
> > > later
> > nightly build?
> >
> > I used build 1271 (Solr 1.4.1, which seemed to be called Solr 4 at the
> > time) during some testing, and it performed well -- but we were not
> > doing geospatial indexing with Solr. Or are you referring to the
> > successor to Solr 3.3 at some future point in time (which I supposed
> > might also be called Solr 4 in the future -- won't that be confusing!)
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Herman Kiefus [mailto:hermank@angieslist.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 2:55 PM
> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: 'Stable' 4.0 version
> >
> > My origination uses Solr 4 because of our geospatial requirements.
> > What insight can you share (if any) regarding moving forward to a
> > later nightly build? Or, for those of you using 4.0 in a Production
> > setting, when is it that you move ahead?
> >
>
RE: 'Stable' 4.0 version
Posted by Herman Kiefus <he...@angieslist.com>.
I should say I'm running: Solr Specification Version: 4.0.0.2010.12.10.08.54.56 and by the looks of the version number I'm running something from Dec 12 of last year.
Tomas: geofilt and geodist() are supported in 3.3? Along with the location and point type? Quite frankly, 1.3/1.4, 3.3, 4.0 all confuse me. I just had our operations personnel install versions until I got the needed functionality.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tomás Fernández Löbbe [mailto:tomasflobbe@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 5:12 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: 'Stable' 4.0 version
As far as I know, Solr's trunk is pretty stable, so you shoundl't have many problems with it if you test it correctly. Lucid's search platform is built upon the trunk ( http://www.lucidimagination.com/products/lucidworks-search-platform/enterprise
).
The one thing I would be concerned is with the index format. It might change in an incompatible way from one revision to the next one, so if rebuilding your index is complicated or takes too long this can be a problem.
If your version election is based on the geospatial stuff, why don't you use Solr 3.3 release? It already contains those features.
Tomás
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Jaeger, Jay - DOT <Ja...@dot.wi.gov>wrote:
> > geospatial requirements
>
> Looking at your email address, no surprise there. 8^)
>
> > What insight can you share (if any) regarding moving forward to a
> > later
> nightly build?
>
> I used build 1271 (Solr 1.4.1, which seemed to be called Solr 4 at the
> time) during some testing, and it performed well -- but we were not
> doing geospatial indexing with Solr. Or are you referring to the
> successor to Solr 3.3 at some future point in time (which I supposed
> might also be called Solr 4 in the future -- won't that be confusing!)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Herman Kiefus [mailto:hermank@angieslist.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 2:55 PM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: 'Stable' 4.0 version
>
> My origination uses Solr 4 because of our geospatial requirements.
> What insight can you share (if any) regarding moving forward to a
> later nightly build? Or, for those of you using 4.0 in a Production
> setting, when is it that you move ahead?
>
Re: 'Stable' 4.0 version
Posted by Tomás Fernández Löbbe <to...@gmail.com>.
As far as I know, Solr's trunk is pretty stable, so you shoundl't have many
problems with it if you test it correctly. Lucid's search platform is built
upon the trunk (
http://www.lucidimagination.com/products/lucidworks-search-platform/enterprise
).
The one thing I would be concerned is with the index format. It might change
in an incompatible way from one revision to the next one, so if rebuilding
your index is complicated or takes too long this can be a problem.
If your version election is based on the geospatial stuff, why don't you use
Solr 3.3 release? It already contains those features.
Tomás
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Jaeger, Jay - DOT <Ja...@dot.wi.gov>wrote:
> > geospatial requirements
>
> Looking at your email address, no surprise there. 8^)
>
> > What insight can you share (if any) regarding moving forward to a later
> nightly build?
>
> I used build 1271 (Solr 1.4.1, which seemed to be called Solr 4 at the
> time) during some testing, and it performed well -- but we were not doing
> geospatial indexing with Solr. Or are you referring to the successor to
> Solr 3.3 at some future point in time (which I supposed might also be called
> Solr 4 in the future -- won't that be confusing!)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Herman Kiefus [mailto:hermank@angieslist.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 2:55 PM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: 'Stable' 4.0 version
>
> My origination uses Solr 4 because of our geospatial requirements. What
> insight can you share (if any) regarding moving forward to a later nightly
> build? Or, for those of you using 4.0 in a Production setting, when is it
> that you move ahead?
>
RE: 'Stable' 4.0 version
Posted by "Jaeger, Jay - DOT" <Ja...@dot.wi.gov>.
> geospatial requirements
Looking at your email address, no surprise there. 8^)
> What insight can you share (if any) regarding moving forward to a later nightly build?
I used build 1271 (Solr 1.4.1, which seemed to be called Solr 4 at the time) during some testing, and it performed well -- but we were not doing geospatial indexing with Solr. Or are you referring to the successor to Solr 3.3 at some future point in time (which I supposed might also be called Solr 4 in the future -- won't that be confusing!)
-----Original Message-----
From: Herman Kiefus [mailto:hermank@angieslist.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 2:55 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: 'Stable' 4.0 version
My origination uses Solr 4 because of our geospatial requirements. What insight can you share (if any) regarding moving forward to a later nightly build? Or, for those of you using 4.0 in a Production setting, when is it that you move ahead?