Hi, What does it mean that Blur's approach "is arguably better" for large data compared to mentioned competitors? Does it mean faster indexing? Smaller index size? Better utilization of resources (RAM, CPU, IO) for large data querying? ... I would be interested in learning more about how it differs from Elasticsearch and Solr.
Regards, Lukáš On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Aaron McCurry <[email protected]> wrote: > It is, but without a community of active developers it has become > stagnant. For example the Lucene library version it utilizes has become > outdated and it would likely be a major undertaking to update the code base > to the newest version. The biggest reason for the low activity it that I > haven't had time to work on the project due to personnel reasons. > > In it's current state is it very stable even at very large index sizes > however the upfront development effort to use Blur is very high by > comparison to ElasticSearch or Solr. I believe this was the primary reason > Blur never really caught on in the community. > > Aaron > > On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Mark Kerzner <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > But, > > > > Isn't Blur a new approach arguably better than SOLR and ElasticSearch for > > big sizes? > > > > Mark >
