>> Generally statements like this are non-sensical. There are hundreds of
>> Verity based applications out there performing very nicely thankyou.
>> You can't just write-off an application like Verity on account of
>> having
>> a slow solution -- more than likely it is your solution implementation
>> that is buggered, and not the Verity engine.
Nope.. I can't help myself.
> Plenty of people have written off Verity for a variety of reasons of
> which performance is often mentioned. While I'll agree that plenty of
> applications achieve acceptable performance with Verity that doesn't
> change the fact that it does in fact have performance issues.
Performance issues?? In a context that vague any solution on earth
could be deemed to have "performance" issues. But for a free text
search over a 10,000 record collection for the average CF app you'd be
hard pushed to make Verity break sweat.
> In fact,
> I have never seen an Verity solution on a single server that
> outperformed that of the freely available Apache project Lucene.
In fact, I have never seen an Apache project Lucene solution on a single
server that outperformed that of the Verity solution. Truth be known
I've never had the chance to compare them in that way. But that's my
point -- what a silly response.
> If any general statement is non-sensical it would be calling an
> implementation buggered without knowledge of the implementation itself.
You've always been a master sophist, Matt. Verity is a solution that
has worked hand in hand with CF since the beginning of time. It's
hardly non-sensical to suggest that it's more likely the Verity
implementation is not optimal than Verity itself is broken.
-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
