API
Feature | Solr 6.2.1 | ElasticSearch 5.0 |
---|---|---|
Format | XML, CSV, JSON | JSON |
HTTP REST API | ![]() | ![]() |
Binary API | ![]() | ![]() |
JMX support | ![]() | ![]() |
Official client libraries | Java | Java, Groovy, PHP, Ruby, Perl, Python, .NET, Javascript |
Community client libraries | PHP, Ruby, Perl, Scala, Python, .NET, Javascript, Go, Erlang, Clojure | Clojure, Cold Fusion, Erlang, Go, Groovy, Haskell, Java, JavaScript, .NET, OCaml, Perl, PHP, Python, R, Ruby, Scala, Smalltalk, Vert.x |
3rd-party product integration (open-source) | Drupal, Magento, Django, ColdFusion, Wordpress, OpenCMS, Plone, Typo3, ez Publish, Symfony2, Riak (via Yokozuna) | Drupal, Django, Symfony2, Wordpress, CouchBase |
3rd-party product integration (commercial) | DataStax Enterprise Search, Cloudera Search, Hortonworks Data Platform, MapR | SearchBlox, Hortonworks Data Platform, MapR etc |
Output | JSON, XML, PHP, Python, Ruby, CSV, Velocity, XSLT, native Java | JSON, XML/HTML (via ) |
Infrastructure
Feature | Solr 6.2.1 | ElasticSearch 5.0 |
---|---|---|
Master-slave replication | ![]() | ![]() |
Integrated snapshot and restore | Filesystem | Filesystem, AWS Cloud Plugin for S3 repositories, HDFS Plugin for Hadoop environments, Azure Cloud Plugin for Azure storage repositories |
Indexing
Feature | Solr 6.2.1 | ElasticSearch 5.0 |
---|---|---|
Data Import | DataImportHandler - JDBC, CSV, XML, Tika, URL, Flat File | [DEPRECATED in 2.x] Rivers modules - ActiveMQ, Amazon SQS, CouchDB, Dropbox, DynamoDB, FileSystem, Git, GitHub, Hazelcast, JDBC, JMS, Kafka, LDAP, MongoDB, neo4j, OAI, RabbitMQ, Redis, RSS, Sofa, Solr, St9, Subversion, Twitter, Wikipedia |
ID field for updates and deduplication | ![]() | ![]() |
DocValues | ![]() | ![]() |
Partial Doc Updates | ![]() | ![]() |
Custom Analyzers and Tokenizers | ![]() | ![]() |
Per-field analyzer chain | ![]() | ![]() |
Per-doc/query analyzer chain | ![]() | ![]() |
Index-time synonyms | ![]() | ![]() |
Query-time synonyms | ![]() | ![]() |
Multiple indexes | ![]() | ![]() |
Near-Realtime Search/Indexing | ![]() | ![]() |
Complex documents | ![]() | ![]() |
Schemaless | ![]() | ![]() |
Multiple document types per schema | ![]() | ![]() |
Online schema changes | ![]() | ![]() |
Apache Tika integration | ![]() | ![]() |
Dynamic fields | ![]() | ![]() |
Field copying | ![]() | ![]() |
Hash-based deduplication | ![]() | ![]() |
Searching
Feature | Solr 6.2.1 | ElasticSearch 5.0 |
---|---|---|
Lucene Query parsing | ![]() | ![]() |
Structured Query DSL | ![]() | ![]() |
Span queries | ![]() | ![]() |
Spatial/geo search | ![]() | ![]() |
Multi-point spatial search | ![]() | ![]() |
Faceting | ![]() | ![]() |
Advanced Faceting | ![]() | ![]() |
Geo-distance Faceting | ![]() | ![]() |
Pivot Facets | ![]() | ![]() |
More Like This | ![]() | ![]() |
Boosting by functions | ![]() | ![]() |
Boosting using scripting languages | ![]() | ![]() |
Push Queries | ![]() | ![]() |
Field collapsing/Results grouping | ![]() | ![]() |
Query Re-Ranking | ![]() | ![]() |
Index-based Spellcheck | ![]() | ![]() |
Wordlist-based Spellcheck | ![]() | ![]() |
Autocomplete | ![]() | ![]() |
Query elevation | ![]() | ![]() |
Intra-index joins | ![]() | ![]() |
Inter-index joins | ![]() | ![]() |
Resultset Scrolling | ![]() | ![]() |
Filter queries | ![]() | ![]() |
Filter execution order | ![]() | ![]() |
Alternative QueryParsers | ![]() | ![]() |
Negative boosting | ![]() | ![]() |
Search across multiple indexes | ![]() | ![]() |
Result highlighting | ![]() | ![]() |
Custom Similarity | ![]() | ![]() |
Searcher warming on index reload | ![]() | ![]() |
Term Vectors API | ![]() | ![]() |
Customizability
Feature | Solr 6.2.1 | ElasticSearch 5.0 |
---|---|---|
Pluggable API endpoints | ![]() | ![]() |
Pluggable search workflow | ![]() | ![]() |
Pluggable update workflow | ![]() | ![]() |
Pluggable Analyzers/Tokenizers | ![]() | ![]() |
Pluggable QueryParsers | ![]() | ![]() |
Pluggable Field Types | ![]() | ![]() |
Pluggable Function queries | ![]() | ![]() |
Pluggable scoring scripts | ![]() | ![]() |
Pluggable hashing | ![]() | ![]() |
Pluggable webapps | ![]() | ![]() |
Automated plugin installation | ![]() | ![]() |
Distributed
Feature | Solr 6.2.1 | ElasticSearch 5.0 |
---|---|---|
Self-contained cluster | ![]() | ![]() |
Automatic node discovery | ![]() | ![]() |
Partition tolerance | ![]() | ![]() |
Automatic failover | ![]() | ![]() |
Automatic leader election | ![]() | ![]() |
Shard replication | ![]() | ![]() |
Sharding | ![]() | ![]() |
Automatic shard rebalancing | ![]() | ![]() |
Change # of shards | ![]() | ![]() |
Shard splitting | ![]() | ![]() |
Relocate shards and replicas | ![]() | ![]() |
Control shard routing | ![]() | ![]() |
Pluggable shard/replica assignment | ![]() | ![]() |
Consistency | Indexing requests are synchronous with replication. A indexing request won't return until all replicas respond. No check for downed replicas. They will catch up when they recover. When new replicas are added, they won't start accepting and responding to requests until they are finished replicating the index. | Replication between nodes is synchronous by default, thus ES is consistent by default, but it can be set to asynchronous on a per document indexing basis. Index writes can be configured to fail is there are not sufficient active shard replicas. The default is quorum, but all or one are also available. |
Misc
Feature | Solr 6.2.1 | ElasticSearch 5.0 |
---|---|---|
Web Admin interface | ![]() | ![]() |
Visualisation | ||
Hosting providers | , , , , , | , , , , , , |
Thoughts...
I'm embedding my answer to this "Solr-vs-Elasticsearch" Quora question verbatim here:
1. Elasticsearch was born in the age of REST APIs. If you love REST APIs, you'll probably feel more at home with ES from the get-go. I don't actually think it's 'cleaner' or 'easier to use', but just that it is more aligned with web 2.0 developers' mindsets.
2. Elasticsearch's Query DSL syntax is really flexible and it's pretty easy to write complex queries with it, though it does border on being verbose. Solr doesn't have an equivalent, last I checked. Having said that, I've never found Solr's query syntax wanting, and I've always been able to easily write a custom SearchComponent if needed (more on this later). 3. I find Elasticsearch's documentation to be pretty awful. It doesn't help that some examples in the documentation are written in YAML and others in JSON. I wrote a ES code parser once to auto-generate documentation from Elasticsearch's source and found a number of discrepancies between code and what's documented on the website, not to mention a number of undocumented/alternative ways to specify the same config key. By contrast, I've found Solr to be consistent and really well-documented. I've found pretty much everything I've wanted to know about querying and updating indices without having to dig into code much. Solr's schema.xml and solrconfig.xml are *extensively* documented with most if not all commonly used configurations. 4. Whilst what Rick says about ES being mostly ready to go out-of-box is true, I think that is also a possible problem with ES. Many users don't take the time to do the most simple config (e.g. type mapping) of ES because it 'just works' in dev, and end up running into issues in production. And once you do have to do config, then I personally prefer Solr's config system over ES'. Long JSON config files can get overwhelming because of the JSON's lack of support for comments. Yes you can use YAML, but it's annoying and confusing to go back and forth between YAML and JSON. 5. If your own app works/thinks in JSON, then without a doubt go for ES because ES thinks in JSON too. Solr merely supports it as an afterthought. ES has a number of nice JSON-related features such as parent-child and nested docs that makes it a very natural fit. Parent-child joins are awkward in Solr, and I don't think there's a Solr equivalent for ES Inner hits. 6. ES doesn't require ZooKeeper for it's 'elastic' features which is nice coz I personally find ZK unpleasant, but as a result, ES does have issues with split-brain scenarios though (google 'elasticsearch split-brain' or see this: Elasticsearch Resiliency Status). 7. Overall from working with clients as a Solr/Elasticsearch consultant, I've found that developer preferences tend to end up along language party lines: if you're a Java/c# developer, you'll be pretty happy with Solr. If you live in Javascript or Ruby, you'll probably love Elasticsearch. If you're on Python or PHP, you'll probably be fine with either. Something to add about this: ES doesn't have a very elegant Java API IMHO (you'll basically end up using REST because it's less painful), whereas Solrj is very satisfactory and more efficient than Solr's REST API. If you're primarily a Java dev team, do take this into consideration for your sanity. There's no scenario in which constructing JSON in Java is fun/simple, whereas in Python its absolutely pain-free, and believe me, if you have a non-trivial app, your ES json query strings will be works of art. 8. ES doesn't have in-built support for pluggable 'SearchComponents', to use Solr's terminology. SearchComponents are (for me) a pretty indispensable part of Solr for anyone who needs to do anything customized and in-depth with search queries. Yes of course, in ES you can just implement your own RestHandler, but that's just not the same as being able to plug-into and rewire the way search queries are handled and parsed. 9. Whichever way you go, I highly suggest you choose a client library which is as 'close to the metal' as you can get. Both ES and Solr have *really* simple search and updating search APIs. If a client library introduces an additional DSL layer in attempt to 'simplify', I suggest you think long and hard about using it, as it's likely to complicate matters in the long-run, and make debugging and asking for help on SO more problematic. In particular, if you're using Rails + Solr, consider using rsolr/rsolr instead of sunspot/sunspot if you can help it. ActiveRecord is complex code and sufficiently magical. The last thing you want is more magic on top of that. --- To conclude, ES and Solr have more or less feature-parity and from a feature standpoint, there's rarely one reason to go one way or the other (unless your app lives/breathes JSON). Performance-wise, they are also likely to be quite similar (I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule. ES' relatively new autocomplete implementation, for example, is a pretty dramatic departure from previous Lucene/Solr implementations, and I suspect it produces faster responses at scale). ES does offer less friction from the get-go and you feel like you have something working much quicker, but I find this to be illusory. Any time gained in this stage is lost when figuring out how to properly configure ES because of poor documentation - an inevitablity when you have a non-trivial application. Solr encourages you to understand a little more about what you're doing, and the chance of you shooting yourself in the foot is somewhat lower, mainly because you're forced to read and modify the 2 well-documented XML config files in order to have a working search app. --- EDIT on Nov 2015: ES has been gradually distinguishing itself from Solr when it comes to data analytics. I think it's fair to attribute this to the immense traction of the ELK stack in the logging, monitoring and analytic space. My guess is that this is where Elastic (the company) gets the majority of its revenue, so it makes perfect sense that ES (the product) reflects this. We see this manifesting primarily in the form of aggregations, which is a more flexible and nuanced replacement for facets. Read more about aggregations here: Migrating to aggregations Aggregations have been out for a while now (since 1.4), but with the recently released ES 2.0 comes pipeline aggregations, which let you compute aggregations such as derivatives, moving averages, and series arithmetic on the results of other aggregations. Very cool stuff, and Solr simply doesn't have an equivalent. More on pipeline aggregations here: Out of this world aggregations If you're currently using or contemplating using Solr in an analytics app, it is worth your while to look into ES aggregation features to see if you need any of it.
Elasticsearch与Solr的比较
当单纯的对已有数据进行搜索时,Solr更快。
当实时建立索引时, Solr会产生io阻塞,查询性能较差, Elasticsearch具有明显的优势。
随着数据量的增加,Solr的搜索效率会变得更低,而Elasticsearch却没有明显的变化。
综上所述,Solr的架构不适合实时搜索的应用。
实际生产环境测试
下图为将搜索引擎从Solr转到Elasticsearch以后的平均查询速度有了50倍的提升。
average_execution_time
Elasticsearch 与 Solr 的比较总结
- 二者安装都很简单;
- Solr 利用 Zookeeper 进行分布式管理,而 Elasticsearch 自身带有分布式协调管理功能;
- Solr 支持更多格式的数据,而 Elasticsearch 仅支持json文件格式;
- Solr 官方提供的功能更多,而 Elasticsearch 本身更注重于核心功能,高级功能多有第三方插件提供;
- Solr 在传统的搜索应用中表现好于 Elasticsearch,但在处理实时搜索应用时效率明显低于 Elasticsearch。
Solr 是传统搜索应用的有力解决方案,但 Elasticsearch 更适用于新兴的实时搜索应用。
参考:
http://solr-vs-elasticsearch.com/
http://i.zhcy.tk/blog/elasticsearchyu-solr/
http://logz.io/blog/solr-vs-elasticsearch/
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=apache%20solr,elasticsearch