[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I agree with Matt. The Verity that comes with CF sucks. Hard.
So.
I am in the process of planning what Blackstone will have in terms of search technology. I am interested in hearing what people have to say about Verity in ColdFusion.
If you want to make sure I see y
No problem. :-)
--
Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Development
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 1:08 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: RE: Update Verity Collections Execution Time
Thanks for the info. It makes me feel
Thanks for the info. It makes me feel better (really, it does).
- Original Message -
From: Tom Jordahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2003 11:09 am
Subject: RE: Update Verity Collections Execution Time
> > No, CF uses a castrated version of the K2 engine
> No, CF uses a castrated version of the K2 engine. God knows what they
castrated, other than the # docs limit.
The K2 server and VDK libraries we use in ColdFusion are the fully capable
release 2.6.1 binaries.
Our license limits the (legal) document count.
--
Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Deve
M
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Update Verity Collections Execution Time
> I've also worked with a variety of other search products (including
> Lucene) -- I'm not wedded to Verity. I just object to it being thrown
> on the scrap heap when in many instances it is perfect
Geoff,
How do you efficiently update a collection?
Andy
That said, we typically take great care to ensure that the collections
are regularly optimised and that they are efficiently updated.
-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Un
: Update Verity Collections Execution Time
Barney,
Barney Boisvert wrote:
> I didn't say anything about read speed. I agree, verity is quite fast for
> that. The updates, however, are slow like a dog. I don't think anyone
can
> argue that one. If you've got a
> I've also worked with a variety of other search products (including
> Lucene) -- I'm not wedded to Verity. I just object to it being thrown
> on the scrap heap when in many instances it is perfectly good, very
> easy
> to setup and comes bundled with CF.
>
No one implied throwing it on the scra
This would imply that the code was looping over the recordset and
updating the Verity collection one record at a time. Inevitably this
leads to massive fragmentation of the Verity index and consequentially
VERY slow performance until you optimise the collection.
Well, that wasn't really an
Kwang Suh wrote:
>>> BTW, how many companies do you know that use the CF Verity engine
>>> successfully?
>> I know plenty, myself. That's not to say it's perfect (or even good), but it
>> is adequate for many, at least. It also has the advantage of reliably being
>> there for most CF installations,
Well, I'm sure the price of CF includes the costs of licensing the Verity
engine.
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: December 2, 2003 8:08 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Update Verity Collections Execution Time
> I know plenty, myself. That'
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: December 2, 2003 5:06 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Update Verity Collections Execution Time
> No, CF uses a castrated version of the K2 engine. God knows what
> they castrated, other than the # docs limit.
What
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No, CF uses a castrated version of the K2 engine. God knows what they
> castrated, other than the # docs limit.
As far as I'm aware CF uses the standard K2 OEM engine. The Verity/CF
gateway reduces some of the functionality available but at the same time
it greatly
> I know plenty, myself. That's not to say it's perfect (or even good),
> but it
> is adequate for many, at least. It also has the advantage of reliably
> being
> there for most CF installations, which can potentially reduce the
> installation dependencies of CF applications.
>
And you can't beat
> No, CF uses a castrated version of the K2 engine. God knows what
> they castrated, other than the # docs limit.
What makes you think that anything other than the maximum number of
documents (a licensing limitation) has been changed? I haven't found any
reason to believe this, although I can onl
3 4:09 pm
Subject: Re: Update Verity Collections Execution Time
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I agree with Matt. The Verity that comes with CF sucks. Hard.
>
> Oh well. CF uses the standard Verity K2 engine. So I guess
> Verity
> ought to just throw in the towel -
> > I suggested it was "more than likely" -- but dealing with the
> > relevant facts never suits your style of arguement.
>
> Where are these relevant facts I am missing? You certainly haven't
> presented a single fact.
Can't we all just get along?
Yuk, yuk, yuk.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Soft
> I suggested it was "more than likely" -- but dealing with the relevant
> facts never suits your style of arguement.
>
Where are these relevant facts I am missing? You certainly haven't
presented a single fact.
> Why bother to look to Lucene if Verity is more than adequate for the
> task, ships
> Verity's history with CF has no bering on how well it performs
> compared to other solutions that can be used with CF. Using that
> logic all CF applications would be built using Pointbase since it
> ships with CF as opposed to Oracle or some other enterprise database.
I don't think that the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I agree with Matt. The Verity that comes with CF sucks. Hard.
Oh well. CF uses the standard Verity K2 engine. So I guess Verity
ought to just throw in the towel -- clearly all the folks out there
using their product successfully for the last 5 years have been duped
> Does it sound correct that adding a single record to a verity
> collection thru action = ''t necessarily sound "correct" or "incorrect". It's certainly
possible.
Without getting into whether Verity sucks or not, there are things that
Verity is good at, and things that it's not so good at. Verit
Barney,
Barney Boisvert wrote:
> I didn't say anything about read speed. I agree, verity is quite fast for
> that. The updates, however, are slow like a dog. I don't think anyone can
> argue that one. If you've got a collection using verity that doesn't change
> a whole lot, then verity is gre
I agree with Matt. The Verity that comes with CF sucks. Hard.
- Original Message -
From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2003 7:45 am
Subject: Re: Update Verity Collections Execution Time
> > Performance issues?? In a context that vague any solut
Matt,
Now your being just plain rude.
Matt Liotta wrote:
> > Performance issues?? In a context that vague any solution on earth
> > could be deemed to have "performance" issues. But for a free text
> > search over a 10,000 record collection for the average CF app you'd be
> > hard pushed to
On Tuesday 02 Dec 2003 02:08 am, Barney Boisvert wrote:
> took upwards of 45 seconds on a reasonably beefy machine (dual P-III 666).
I wouldn't call that 'reasonably beefy' these days.
--
Tom Chiverton
Advanced ColdFusion Programmer
Tel: +44(0)1749 834997
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BlueFinger Li
eoff Bowers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 8:13 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Update Verity Collections Execution Time
>
> Folks,
>
> Generally statements like this are non-sensical. There are
> hundreds of
> Verity based applicatio
> Performance issues?? In a context that vague any solution on earth
> could be deemed to have "performance" issues. But for a free text
> search over a 10,000 record collection for the average CF app you'd be
> hard pushed to make Verity break sweat.
>
Your the one who made the assumption that s
Matt Liotta wrote:
>> Generally statements like this are non-sensical. There are hundreds of
>> Verity based applications out there performing very nicely thankyou.
>> You can't just write-off an application like Verity on account of
>> having
>> a slow solution -- more than likely it is your solu
Matt Liotta wrote:
> If any general statement is non-sensical it would be calling an
> implementation buggered without knowledge of the implementation itself.
Matt, now your just teasing me :)
-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscri
> Generally statements like this are non-sensical. There are hundreds of
> Verity based applications out there performing very nicely thankyou.
> You can't just write-off an application like Verity on account of
> having
> a slow solution -- more than likely it is your solution implementation
> t
rch I had designed. Wasn't
> as pretty, but a whole lot faster.
>
> Thanks.
> -Original Message-
> From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 8:09 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Update Verity Collections Executi
crapped in favor of the very speedy
FULLTEXT search from MySQL.
Cheers,
barneyb
> -Original Message-
> From: Andy Ousterhout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 6:02 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Update Verity Collections Execution T
speedy
FULLTEXT search from MySQL.
Cheers,
barneyb
> -Original Message-
> From: Andy Ousterhout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 6:02 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Update Verity Collections Execution Time
>
> Does it sound correct that adding
Does it sound correct that adding a single record to a verity collection thru
action = ''My Goodness Cookies
www.omygoodness.com
910 Sherwood Drive, Unit 19
Lake Bluff, IL 60044
Phone 847.735.9890
Fax 847.735.9910
Yahoo IM: andy_ousterhout
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription
34 matches
Mail list logo