Adam Estrada 2010-11-09, 22:48
Markus Jelsma 2010-11-09, 23:57
Jonathan Rochkind 2010-11-10, 00:34
Adam Estrada 2010-11-10, 02:00
Lance Norskog 2010-11-10, 03:07
-Re: Using Multiple Cores for Multiple Users
Dennis Gearon 2010-11-10, 03:50
hmmmmm, relevance is before filtering, probably during indexing?
It is always a good idea to learn from your own mistakes. It is usually a better
idea to learn from others’ mistakes, so you do not have to make them yourself.
EARTH has a Right To Life,
otherwise we all die.
----- Original Message ----
From: Lance Norskog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue, November 9, 2010 7:07:45 PM
Subject: Re: Using Multiple Cores for Multiple Users
There is a standard problem with this: relevance is determined from
all of the words in a field of all documents, not just the documents
that match the query. That is, when user A searches for 'monkeys' and
one of his feeds has a document with this word, but someone else is a
zoophile, 'monkeys' will be a common word in the index. This will skew
the relevance computation for user A.
You could have a separate text field for each user. This might work
better- but you can't use field norms (they take up space for all
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Adam Estrada
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks a lot for all the tips, guys! I think that we may explore both
> options just to see what happens. I'm sure that scalability will be a huge
> mess with the core-per-user scenario. I like the idea of creating a user ID
> field and agree that it's probably the best approach. We'll see...I will be
> sure to let the list know what I find! Please don't stop posting your
> comments everyone ;-) My inquiring mind wants to know...
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If storing in a single index (possibly sharded if you need it), you can
>> simply include a solr field that specifies the user ID of the saved thing.
>> On the client side, in your application, simply ensure that there is an fq
>> parameter limiting to the current user, if you want to limit to the current
>> user's stuff. Relevancy ranking should work just as if you had 'seperate
>> cores', there is no relevancy issue.
>> It IS true that when your index gets very large, commits will start taking
>> longer, which can be a problem. I don't mean commits will take longer just
>> because there is more stuff to commit -- the larger the index, the longer an
>> update to a single document will take to commit.
>> In general, i suspect that having dozens or hundreds (or thousands!) of
>> cores is not going to scale well, it is not going to make good use of your
>> cpu/ram/hd resources. Not really the intended use case of multiple cores.
>> However, you are probably going to run into some issues with the single
>> index approach too. In general, how to deal with "multi-tenancy" in Solr is
>> an oft-asked question that there doesn't seem to be any "just works and does
>> everything for you without needing to think about it" solution for in solr.
>> Judging from past thread. I am not a Solr developer or expert.
>> From: Markus Jelsma [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 6:57 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Cc: Adam Estrada
>> Subject: Re: Using Multiple Cores for Multiple Users
>> > All,
>> > I have a web application that requires the user to register and then
>> > to gain access to the site. Pretty standard stuff...Now I would like to
>> > know what the best approach would be to implement a "customized" search
>> > experience for each user. Would this mean creating a separate core per
>> > user? I think that this is not possible without restarting Solr after
>> > core is added to the multi-core xml file, right?
>> No, you can dynamically manage cores and parts of their configuration.
>> Sometimes you must reindex after a change, the same is true for reloading
>> cores. Check the wiki on this one .
Lance Norskog 2010-11-10, 04:00
Dennis Gearon 2010-11-10, 07:27
Shalin Shekhar Mangar 2010-11-10, 15:48
Jan Høydahl / Cominvent 2010-11-10, 09:19
Dennis Gearon 2010-11-10, 00:16