Re: distributed search mechanism

[Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org>]

: This is typically the kind of description I need, but I wonder if the 
: one cited above is still valid (since it was apparently written quite a 
: time before final commit).
: Assuming it is, what's then the difference between the STEPS mentioned 
" and the STAGES later introduced (STAGE_START, STAGE_PARSE_QUERY, etc...) ?

I don't have any answers to your questions, but i would like to suggest 
that whoever does have hte answers (hem: Yonik?) update 
"DistributedSearchDesign" to reflect reality (i think it was orriginally 
just some brainstorming notes) and link to it from "DistributedSearch" ...

http://wiki.apache.org/solr/DistributedSearch
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/DistributedSearchDesign




-Hoss

Re: distributed search mechanism

[Shalin Shekhar Mangar <sh...@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Grégoire Neuville <
gregoire.neuville@gmail.com> wrote:

> The http://wiki.apache.org/solr/DistributedSearchDesign page was last
> edited
> by Yonik Seeley on the 2008-02-27, which seems a date of major commit
> (according to JIRA), and he did not amend the "current approach" part of
> the
> page : so the "Multi-phased approach, allowing for inconsistency" design is
> quite probably still valid ?... It is a bit abstract description of the
> process, but will do it anyway, I'll use that (unless someone tells me this
> is eventually out of date...)
>

Yes, AFAIK, the multi-phased approach is being used currently.
-- 
Regards,
Shalin Shekhar Mangar.

Re: distributed search mechanism

[Grégoire Neuville <gr...@gmail.com>]

I thank you for the answer.

The http://wiki.apache.org/solr/DistributedSearchDesign page was last edited
by Yonik Seeley on the 2008-02-27, which seems a date of major commit
(according to JIRA), and he did not amend the "current approach" part of the
page : so the "Multi-phased approach, allowing for inconsistency" design is
quite probably still valid ?... It is a bit abstract description of the
process, but will do it anyway, I'll use that (unless someone tells me this
is eventually out of date...)

Thanks again,

-- 
Grégoire Neuville