On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Daniel Friesen
<daniel(a)nadir-seen-fire.com>wrote;wrote:
> Wait, Elasticsearch? I thought the original discussions were about Solr?
Chad wrote:
Original discussions were with Solr. We evaluated both
and went with
Elastic. The Solr attempt is in the 'solr' branch on the git repo.
On 08/15/2013 08:42 PM, Nikolas Everett wrote:
It certainly started that way but there were but some rather insistent
folks talked me in to giving Elasticsearch a chance. I spent a week
putting together a prototype and I was so impressed that I convinced us to
move over. I'm reasonably sure I sent out an email at the time. I know I
updated the RFC. In any case, that is where we are.
As far what impressed me about elasticsearch:
I like the documentation.
I like the query syntax.
I like the fully baked schema api.
I (mostly) liked the source code itself.
i like the deb package.
I like how organized the bug submission and contribution process is.
Seriously, if you are running an open source project, build something like
http://www.elasticsearch.org/contributing-to-elasticsearch/ . Forcing the
user to reproduce bugs with curl is genius for a service like elasticsearch.
So, yeah, we started with solr but didn't stay there.
Nik
Nik, Chad, thanks for the explanation!
Daniel, the July monthly WMF engineering report
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_engineering_report/2013/July
and previous monthly engineering reports included summaries of where the
search investigation was going. You can read more specifically about
search at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Search and
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Search/status . Hope that helps.
--
Sumana Harihareswara
Engineering Community Manager
Wikimedia Foundation