> I assume one could use Skwish instead of Lucene's normal stored fields to > store & retrieve document data?
Exactly: instead of storing the field's value directly in Lucene, you could store it in skwish and then store its skwish id in the Lucene field instead. This works well for serving large streams (e.g. original document contents). > Have you run any threaded performance tests comparing the two? No direct comps, yet. -b On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 5:22 AM, Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: > > This looks interesting! > I assume one could use Skwish instead of Lucene's normal stored fields to > store & retrieve document data? > Have you run any threaded performance tests comparing the two? > Mike > > Babak Farhang <farh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> I've been working on a library called Skwish to complement indexes >> like Lucene, for blob storage and retrieval. This is nothing more >> than a structured implementation of storing all the files in one file >> and managing their offsets in another. The idea is to provide a fast, >> concurrent, lock-free way to serve lots of files to lots of users. >> >> Hope you find it useful or interesting. >> >> -Babak >> http://skwish.sourceforge.net/ >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
