Actually I think competing projects is very healthy for open source development.

There are many things you could explore to "contrast" with Lucene,
e.g. write your new search engine in Go not Java: Java has many
problems, maybe Go fixes them.  Go also has a low-latency garbage
collector in development ... and Java's GC options still can't scale
to the heap sizes that are practical now.

Lucene has many limitations, so your competing engine could focus on
them.  E.g. the "schemalessness" of Lucene has become a big problem,
and near impossible to fix at this point, and prevents new important
features like LUCENE-5879 from being possible, so you could give your
engine a "gentle" schema from the start.

The Lucene Filter/Query situation is a mess: one should extend the other.

Lucene has weak support for proximity queries (SpanQuery is slow and
does not get much attention).

Lucene is showing its age, missing some compelling features like a
builtin transaction log, "core" support for numerics (they are sort of
hacked on top), optimistic concurrency support (sequence ids,
versions, something), distributed support (near real time replication,
etc.), multi-tenancy, an example server implementation, so the search
servers on top of Lucene have had to fill these gaps.  Maybe you could
make your engine distributed from the start (Go is a great match for
that, from what little I know).

All 3 highlighter options have problems.

The analysis chain (attributes) is overly complex.

In your competing engine you can borrow/copy/steal from Lucene's good
parts to get started...


Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com


On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 8:43 PM, swsong_dev <[email protected]> wrote:
> I’m developing search engine, Fastcatsearch. http://github 
> <hthttp://githubtp//github>.com/fastcatsearch/fastcatsearch
>
> Lucene is widely known and famous project and I cannot beat Lucene for now.
>
> But is there any chance to beat Lucene?
>
> Anything like features, performance.
>
> Please, let me know what to do to make better product than Lucene.
>
> Thank you.

Reply via email to