JC>> we would like to perform Lucene searches over
JC>> several Nutch-generated indexes residing on
JC>> separate servers ... [including] lucene queries
JC>> such as span, fuzzy, range, etc.
DC> It should not be hard to implement these as Nutch
DC> QueryFilter plugins. Thus, one could add
DC> "fuzzy:foo" or "range:foo-bar" to a Nutch query
and
DC> the plugin would translate these into appropriate
DC> Lucene clauses and add them to the generated
Lucene
DC> query. Does this make sense?
Ah, yes, thanks!
JC>> Why does net.nutch.searcher.Query implement the
JC>> Writable interface?
DC> The translation from Nutch query to Lucene query
DC> happens locally on each search node, so that it
can
DC> utilize index-specific information, so we do not
DC> need to serialize the Lucene query.
Where 'search node' is a node running
searcher.DistributedSearch.Server?
DC> Nutch uses it's own serialization and IPC
DC> implementations instead of Java's serialization
and
DC> RMI for better scalablilty, reliability and
DC> performance. ... Nutch's goal is to scale to
DC> hundreds or thousands of nodes.
If we expect to never want more than a hundred nutch
(crawler, indexer) nodes, but may want full Lucene
functionality or more, then would we perhaps be better
off sticking with java serialization and RMI?
Thank you.
Jeremy
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues
Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek.
It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt
_______________________________________________
Nutch-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nutch-developers
