> I'd love to try Lucene with the above, but the Lucene install fails > because > of JavaCC issues. Surprised more people haven't encountered this > problem, > as the install instructions are out of date.
The JavaCC fix is in the queue. Check Bugzilla for details (link on Lucene home page). Otis > -----Original Message----- > From: Tatu Saloranta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 12:26 PM > To: Lucene Users List > Subject: Re: commercial websites powered by Lucene? > > > On Tuesday 24 June 2003 07:36, Ulrich Mayring wrote: > > Chris Miller wrote: > ... > > Well, nothing against Lucene, but it doesn't solve your problem, > which > > is an overloaded DB-Server. It may temporarily alleviate the > effects, > > but you'll soon be at the same load again. So I'd recommend to > install > > I don't think that would necessarily be the case. Like you mention > later on, > indexing data stored in DB does flatten it to allow faster indexing > (and > retrieval), and faster in this context means more efficient, not only > sharing > the load between DB and search engine, but potentially lowering total > load? > > The alternative, data warehouse - like preprocessing of data, for > faster > search, would likely be doable too, but it's usually more useful for > running > reports. For actual searches Lucene does it job nicely and > efficiently, > biggest problems I've seen are more related to relevancy questions. > But > that's where tuning of Lucene ranking should be easier than trying to > build > your own ranking from raw database hits (except if one uses > OracleText or > such that's pretty much a search engine on top of DB itself). > > So, to me it all comes down to "right tool for the job" aspect; DBs > are > good > at mass retrieval of data, or using aggregate functions (in read-only > side), > whereas dedicated search engines are better for, well, searching. > > ... > > Of course, in real life there may be political obstacles which will > > prevent you from doing the right thing as detailed above for > example, > > and your only chance is to circumvent in some way - and then Lucene > is a > > great way to do that. But keep in mind that you are basically > > reinventing the functionality that is already built-in in a > database :) > > It depends on type of queries, but Lucene certainly has much more > advanced > text searching functionality, even if indexed content comes from a > rigid > structure like RDBMS. I'm not sure using a ready product like Lucene > is > reinventing much functionality, even considering synchronization > issues? > > So I would go as far saying that for searching purposes, plain > vanilla > RDBMSs > are not all that great in the first place. Even if queries need not > use > advanced search features (advanced as in not just using % and _ in > addition > to exact matches) Lucene may well offer better search performance and > functionality. > > -+ Tatu +- > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
