Moving back to RDBMS model will be a big step backwards where we miss mulivalued fields and arbitrary fields .
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:17 AM, Jason Rutherglen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Cool. I mention H2 because it does have some Lucene code in it yes. > Also according to some benchmarks it's the fastest of the open source > databases. I think it's possible to integrate realtime search for H2. > I suppose there is no need to store the data in Lucene in this case? > One loses the multiple values per field Lucene offers, and the schema > become static. Perhaps it's a trade off? > > On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:17 PM, J. Delgado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Yes, both Marcelo and I would be interested. >> >> We looked into H2 and it looks like something similar to Oracle's ODCI can >> be implemented. Plus the primitive full-text implementación is based on >> Lucene. >> I say primitive because looking at the code I saw that one cannot define an >> Analyzer and for each scan corresponding to a where clause a searcher is >> open and closed, instead of having a pool, plus it does not have any way to >> queue changes to reduce the use of the IndexWriter, etc. >> >> But its open source and that is a great starting point! >> >> -- Joaquin >> >> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Jason Rutherglen >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Perhaps an interesting project would be to integrate Ocean with H2 >>> www.h2database.com to take advantage of both models. I'm not sure how >>> exactly that would work, but it seems like it would not be too >>> difficult. Perhaps this would solve being able to perform faster >>> hierarchical queries and perhaps other types of queries that Lucene is >>> not capable of. >>> >>> Is this something Joaquin you are interested in collaborating on? I >>> am definitely interested in it. >>> >>> On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 4:04 AM, J. Delgado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>> > On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 1:36 AM, Otis Gospodnetic >>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Regarding real-time search and Solr, my feeling is the focus should be >>> >> on >>> >> first adding real-time search to Lucene, and then we'll figure out how >>> >> to >>> >> incorporate that into Solr later. >>> > >>> > >>> > Otis, what do you mean exactly by "adding real-time search to Lucene"? >>> > Note >>> > that Lucene, being a indexing/search library (and not a full blown >>> > search >>> > engine), is by definition "real-time": once you add/write a document to >>> > the >>> > index it becomes immediately searchable and if a document is logically >>> > deleted and no longer returned in a search, though physical deletion >>> > happens >>> > during an index optimization. >>> > >>> > Now, the problem of adding/deleting documents in bulk, as part of a >>> > transaction and making these documents available for search immediately >>> > after the transaction is commited sounds more like a search engine >>> > problem >>> > (i.e. SOLR, Nutch, Ocean), specially if these transactions are known to >>> > be >>> > I/O expensive and thus are usually implemented bached proceeses with >>> > some >>> > kind of sync mechanism, which makes them non real-time. >>> > >>> > For example, in my previous life, I designed and help implement a >>> > quasi-realtime enterprise search engine using Lucene, having a set of >>> > multi-threaded indexers hitting a set of multiple indexes alocatted >>> > accross >>> > different search services which powered a broker based distributed >>> > search >>> > interface. The most recent documents provided to the indexers were >>> > always >>> > added to the smaller in-memory (RAM) indexes which usually could absorbe >>> > the >>> > load of a bulk "add" transaction and later would be merged into larger >>> > disk >>> > based indexes and then flushed to make them ready to absorbe new fresh >>> > docs. >>> > We even had further partitioning of the indexes that reflected time >>> > periods >>> > with caps on size for them to be merged into older more archive based >>> > indexes which were used less (yes the search engine default search was >>> > on >>> > data no more than 1 month old, though user could open the time window by >>> > including archives). >>> > >>> > As for SOLR and OCEAN, I would argue that these semi-structured search >>> > engines are becomming more and more like relational databases with >>> > full-text >>> > search capablities (without the benefit of full reletional algebra -- >>> > for >>> > example joins are not possible using SOLR). Notice that "real-time" CRUD >>> > operations and transactionality are core DB concepts adn have been >>> > studied >>> > and developed by database communities for aquite long time. There has >>> > been >>> > recent efforts on how to effeciently integrate Lucene into releational >>> > databases (see Lucene JVM ORACLE integration, see >>> > >>> > http://marceloochoa.blogspot.com/2007/09/running-lucene-inside-your-oracle-jvm.html) >>> > >>> > I think we should seriously look at joining efforts with open-source >>> > Database engine projects, written in Java (see >>> > http://java-source.net/open-source/database-engines) in order to blend >>> > IR >>> > and ORM for once and for all. >>> > >>> > -- Joaquin >>> > >>> > >>> >> >>> >> I've read Jason's Wiki as well. Actually, I had to read it a number of >>> >> times to understand bits and pieces of it. I have to admit there is >>> >> still >>> >> some fuzziness about the whole things in my head - is "Ocean" something >>> >> that >>> >> already works, a separate project on googlecode.com? I think so. If >>> >> so, >>> >> and if you are working on getting it integrated into Lucene, would it >>> >> make >>> >> it less confusing to just refer to it as "real-time search", so there >>> >> is no >>> >> confusion? >>> >> >>> >> If this is to be initially integrated into Lucene, why are things like >>> >> replication, crowding/field collapsing, locallucene, name service, tag >>> >> index, etc. all mentioned there on the Wiki and bundled with >>> >> description of >>> >> how real-time search works and is to be implemented? I suppose >>> >> mentioning >>> >> replication kind-of makes sense because the replication approach is >>> >> closely >>> >> tied to real-time search - all query nodes need to see index changes >>> >> fast. >>> >> But Lucene itself offers no replication mechanism, so maybe the >>> >> replication >>> >> is something to figure out separately, say on the Solr level, later on >>> >> "once >>> >> we get there". I think even just the essential real-time search >>> >> requires >>> >> substantial changes to Lucene (I remember seeing large patches in >>> >> JIRA), >>> >> which makes it hard to digest, understand, comment on, and ultimately >>> >> commit >>> >> (hence the luke warm response, I think). Bringing other non-essential >>> >> elements into discussion at the same time makes it more difficult t o >>> >> process all this new stuff, at least for me. Am I the only one who >>> >> finds >>> >> this hard? >>> >> >>> >> That said, it sounds like we have some discussion going (Karl...), so I >>> >> look forward to understanding more! :) >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Otis >>> >> -- >>> >> Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ----- Original Message ---- >>> >> > From: Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >> > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org >>> >> > Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2008 10:13:32 AM >>> >> > Subject: Re: Realtime Search for Social Networks Collaboration >>> >> > >>> >> > On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 6:50 PM, Jason Rutherglen >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> > > I also think it's got a >>> >> > > lot of things now which makes integration difficult to do properly. >>> >> > >>> >> > I agree, and that's why the major bump in version number rather than >>> >> > minor - we recognize that some features will need some amount of >>> >> > rearchitecture. >>> >> > >>> >> > > I think the problem with integration with SOLR is it was designed >>> >> > > with >>> >> > > a different problem set in mind than Ocean, originally the CNET >>> >> > > shopping application. >>> >> > >>> >> > That was the first use of Solr, but it actually existed before that >>> >> > w/o any defined use other than to be a "plan B" alternative to MySQL >>> >> > based search servers (that's actually where some of the parameter >>> >> > names come from... the default /select URL instead of /search, the >>> >> > "rows" parameter, etc). >>> >> > >>> >> > But you're right... some things like the replication strategy were >>> >> > designed (well, borrowed from Doug to be exact) with the idea that it >>> >> > would be OK to have slightly "stale" views of the data in the range >>> >> > of >>> >> > minutes. It just made things easier/possible at the time. But tons >>> >> > of Solr and Lucene users want almost instantaneous visibility of >>> >> > added >>> >> > documents, if they can get it. It's hardly restricted to social >>> >> > network applications. >>> >> > >>> >> > Bottom line is that Solr aims to be a general enterprise search >>> >> > platform, and getting as real-time as we can get, and as scalable as >>> >> > we can get are some of the top priorities going forward. >>> >> > >>> >> > -Yonik >>> >> > >>> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- --Noble Paul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
