Hey Gang,
Back from ApacheCon in Amsterdam, and thought I would give a bit of a
report on a few things that were interesting related to Lucene.
First off, there was a very high level of interest in Lucene and
Solr, which was great to see.
In doing a training and a talk, couple of things t
I think the 'updating documents' issue is almost always related to
unique document updates, where there exists some "primary unique key"
for the document. Is this true?
If so, maybe a de-facto standard like a indexed/stored/non-tokenized
field of OID should be used.
if so, it would be eas
Grant Ingersoll wrote:
2. How does Lucene search compare w/ using built in DB search? Has
anyone done a study comparing Lucene performance/quality to the likes
of MySQL/Postgres/Oracle? Related question is always on how to
integrate the two.
Hi Grant.
when we initially investigated using
Yep, my advice always is use a db for what a db is designed for (set
manipulation) and use Lucene for what it is good for, but some people
were commenting that DB text search is improving in terms of quality.
I could see that if flex. indexing gets implemented, that we could
implement other
: I think the 'updating documents' issue is almost always related to
: unique document updates, where there exists some "primary unique key"
: for the document. Is this true?
: if so, it would be easy to add the following to IndexModifer:
:
: addDocument(Document)
: updateDocument(Document)
the
: Yep, my advice always is use a db for what a db is designed for (set
: manipulation) and use Lucene for what it is good for, but some people
careful how you word that advice ... Solr's first use case was faceted
browsing because using Lucene to generate BitSets and computing the
intersection co
I am not sure I agree with that.
Document management systems are quite common these days, and people
are used to "checking out" a document, making changes, and checking
the entire document back in.
In many ways Lucene can be viewed as a self-contained document mngt
system if you store eve
: I am not sure I agree with that.
i don't think i understand what part you don't agree with :)
: Document management systems are quite common these days, and people
: are used to "checking out" a document, making changes, and checking
: the entire document back in.
:
: In many ways Lucene can b
I agree with you characterization. We love the speed and
performance of Lucene, but the updating process just doesn't feel
right in that context.
I think the common use case that comes to mind is tagging a
document. Every time a doc gets tagged, you have to rebuild it, or
manage multip
> : If the user is savvy enough to 'rebuild' their documents from an
> : external source, then the fields do not need to be stored (just the
> : OID field for convenience).
>
> it's this rebuilding that people tend to dislike about the delete/re-add
> process that's currently neccessary to "update"
I think the topest thing lucene/solr should do:
1: more easy use and less code
2: distributed index and search
3: manage these index and search server
4: test method or tool
i don't agree
2007/5/8, Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:Yep, my advice always is use
a db for what a db is designed fo
The ever growing presence of mingled structured and unstructured data is a
fact of life and modern systems we have to deal with. Clearly, the tendency
is that full-text indexing is moving towards DB functionality, i.e.
fields for projection/filtering, sorting, faceted queries,
transactional CRUD
12 matches
Mail list logo
