>
>
> Does anyone know of any benchmark tests comparing performance and
> functionality of SWISH++ vs ht://Dig?
>
> I only ask because a client has mentioned SWISH++ as a possible alternative.
> I guess that from the Web stats (I have heard very little mention of SWISH++
> in the outside world) there is the suggestion that it's a tool of choice. I
> had a look at it and it didn't seem to be terribly well documented (yeah,
> source-code documentation, but I want to USE the product, not mess around
> inside its code...). Just wondered really whether anyone had any OBJECTIVE
> comments they could add, or perhaps knew of somewhere I could maybe find out
> some of this?
>
> Regards,
>
> Phil Coates.
I've no experience of SWISH++ but we have been using SWISH, and more
recently SWISH-E, at this site for a few years.
The original SWISH was only capable of indexing filestore, and given a
top directory would index all files, descending into all subdirectories.
We use SWISH-E in this mode, which is complementary to ht://Dig and most
other search engines which follow links.
SWISH-E has one facility which ht://Dig does not have and is very attractive
for some specialist applications: it allows a search which will _only_
find pages which contain a given search word or words in a particular
META tag. Thus you can have, for example, pages which contain METAs such as:
<META NAME="Author" Content="Ransome, A.">
<META NAME="Title" Content="Swallows and Amazons">
and then allow a search on Author or on Title, etc.
Librarians and others doing systematic cataloguing find this a welcome
feature.
--
David J Adams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Computing Services
University of Southampton
------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the htdig mailing list, send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the single word unsubscribe in
the SUBJECT of the message.
