-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
SOLR-16654: Add support for node-level caches (apache/solr#1351) #138
base: fs/branch_9_3
Are you sure you want to change the base?
SOLR-16654: Add support for node-level caches (apache/solr#1351) #138
Conversation
<query> | ||
<filterCache | ||
class="solr.ThinCache" | ||
parentCacheName="myNodeLevelCacheThin" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
myNodeLevelCacheThin needs to define in solr.xml?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes, exactly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What is the motivation to keep this separate (not in solrconfig)? Would be good to have cacheref
element in colrconfig
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What is the motivation to keep this separate (not in solrconfig)?
The cache is configured in the config file that's associated with the same scope as the cache itself. solrconfig.xml
configures properties associated with the collection/core. A node-level cache is configured in the node-level config file, solr.xml
.
What is the motivation to keep this separate (not in solrconfig)? Would be good to have cacheref element in colrconfig ?
I'm not sure I understand?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I feel like both should be configure in one place ? probably its easier to track
Backporting directly to
fs/branch_9_3
. Sincefs/branch_9x
has already separated fromfs/branch_9_3
, the upstream change will be pulled intofs/branch_9x
before 9.4, so we don't need to backport this there.