madppiper wrote: > Ah, yes indeed. You're still mumbling.
> Sorry, about my mumbling today. To be a tiny bit more specific. I am of > course only referring to the indexed product search. I know that Solr is > based on Lucene and that both use a similar way of indexing new listed > products (that is by adding, updating,removing new entities from/to the > index through XML files). No, it doesn't. Lucene is an api; it doesn't use xml files to populate it's internal database. Lucene doesn't index products. It provides an inverted index to records of text fields(which can be tokenized(or not), compressed(or not), or stored(or not). It's up to the application to decide which fields to add to a record, and what the fields and records actually mean. > From as much as I understand, Lucene is the main search engine used within > OFBiz (I hope we are NOT relying on cached Mysql-native Fulltext Queries > here). New Products are added to or removed from the IndexTree through a xml > script (just as they would in Solr). Lucene then provides the rest of the > OFBiz environment with a regular search mechanism, as well as ranked > indexing, sorting and yadayadayada. Um, no, lucene is not the *main* engine, not at all. Have you seen ProductKeyword? > Lucene however, does not allow advanced Facetting, nor is it a standalone > application. Both of these advantages are something that Solr provides. > Therefore it would be great if one could easily switch both search > engines... You say "program A has feature Z, so program A is obviously better", but you never define feature Z. I suggest you go have your morning coffee first, and maybe wait 'til after lunch. You're not helping your argument at all. ps: for our own internal websites, I've utilized both lucene and nutch(which is based on hadoop and lucene), and in both of those cases, you write *java* code to populate the lucene record with fields. No xml is ever used.
