Hello,
Just to put some light on the product search.
Main class involved :
applications/product/src/org/ofbiz/product/product/ProductSearch.java

It's 100% SGDB based, not lucene or whatever.

For a reminder, there is an entity in Ofbiz called ProductKeyword which
primary key is ProductId and Keyword (varchar(60)) and that is filled at
each creation update of the product carateristics, name, fields,....

So is it today the best and most efficient way to do search? huho, not sure
you are right.. But for product only, it's usually enough (boolean search
speaking). Now if need also to index files that are associated with product
and may be (but i don't know if exist already as i never looked) if need to
index CMS and files uploaded through CMS, a solution based on a real search
engine should be far more superior.

Regards

2008/9/11 madppiper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>
>
> BJ Freeman wrote:
> >
> > You have stated what caused the responses, when you made assumptions.
> > [I have worked with Solr, not lucene.]
> >
> > You have not investigated how ofbiz works.
>
> I think that comments like that are not only unneccesary, but unhealthy for
> any open discussion. (Please read my original message again, replace the
> term "proprietary" with "native", keep in mind that OFBIz does NOT use
> Lucene for searching - so I was told several times now, and then skip
> through the original question at hand)
>
>
>
> @Jacques: Thanks for the response - not quite. There are actually two
> questions at hand:
>
> 1)
> What search engine, if any, is used by OFBiz to generate keyword search
> results for Products?
>
> 2)
> If 1) can be answered with "NO Searchengine per se" - which would implie
> that we are doing real database queries right now (perhaps one that use
> Fulltext-query algorithms), would it not be a good idea to move to a
> standalone searchengine as Solr?
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Replacing-Lucene-with-Solr-tp19412826p19429281.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>

Reply via email to