Solr may build on Lucene, but it may also inhibit me from taking real advantage of Lucene. We had that problem a couple of years ago with the porter stem filter. We couldn't conduct the kind of searches we wanted because the porter stem filter stemmed our search terms -- and at the time, there wasn't an easy way to turn it off.
I understand faceting, but I also know that sometimes the most effective way to search is to let people who know how to search do it in the most direct way possible. It's particularly true when they create the collections they want to search. We have some collections that are only searched by the people who make them. They are good searchers who know what they are doing. Faceting, it seems to me, is aimed at the naïve user who doesn't know anything about searching. Do such people actually search DSpace directly through the interface, or do their searches originate in Google, Bing, etc? In any case, we have some user groups with closed collections in our repository and they need the traditional search and browse functions. I just want to make sure that future dspace developments don't adversely impact their needs. Just telling me that Solr builds on Lucene doesn't really answer the question. Richard Jizba Health Sciences Library Creighton University (402) 280-5142 [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of helix84 Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 11:23 AM To: Jizba, Richard Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Dspace-general] Search in DSpace Hi Richard, just a short reply. Are you aware that Solr (Discovery in DSpace uses Solr) builds on Lucene? They even support the same syntax with some minor differences and even that is configurable. The issue is not that Lucene is worse than Solr or anything, it's just that Solr brings many features that aren't in pure Lucene. The reason why we dislike keeping both is that there's a significant development, maintenance and support burden for DSpace commiters to keep both. Count with me - two search backends times two UIs (plus other interfaces like REST API in the works) are four wildly different systems to work with. DSpace is not just one platform, it's a collection of platforms. If we converge upon a single search platform (I don't see this happening with UIs), we'll have more time to put towards improving DSpace and adding new features thanks to not doing double the amount of work. This will make DSpace better in the long term. From what you said, it seems to me that everything you have should be also possible to do in Discovery. I do understand that changing your highly customized implementation from Lucene to Solr is a lot of work. But it has very tangible advantages. Regards, ~~helix84 Compulsory reading: DSpace Mailing List Etiquette https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/Mailing+List+Etiquette ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Android apps run on BlackBerry 10 Introducing the new BlackBerry 10.2.1 Runtime for Android apps. Now with support for Jelly Bean, Bluetooth, Mapview and more. Get your Android app in front of a whole new audience. Start now. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=124407151&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Dspace-general mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspace-general
