I used the MySQL full text search to index about 70K business directory records. It became impossibly slow and I ended up creating my own text search engine similar in concept to Lucene but database driven. It worked much faster than the native MySQL full text search.
Other limitations of MySQL MATCH syntax: - only 4 letter words and over are indexed (if you change this it searches VERY slowly) - the MATCH value figure returned is next to useless (it ranges wildly and is not normalized like Lucene values are) - cannot weight certain fields as more important than others. Really it is very limited. John. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 1:23 AM Subject: RE: Lucene vs. MySQL Full-Text I also question whether it could handle extreme volume with such good query speed. Has anyone done numbers with 1+ million documents? -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Naber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 5:44 PM To: Lucene Users List Subject: Re: Lucene vs. MySQL Full-Text On Tuesday 20 July 2004 21:29, Tim Brennan wrote: > Does anyone out there have > anything more concrete they can add? Stemming is still on the MySQL TODO list: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/Fulltext_TODO.html Also, for most people it's easier to extend Lucene than MySQL (as MySQL is written in C(++?)) and there are more powerful queries in Lucene, e.g. fuzzy phrase search. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
