Thanks for sharing the info, Cass. Is eBay still using Texis? (this used to be obvious from eBay's URLs a few years ago). I used Texis with their Vortex script before Lucene was born.
Otis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Simpy -- http://www.simpy.com/ - Tag - Search - Share ----- Original Message ---- From: Cass Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:59:49 PM Subject: Re: Thank you... You all rock. I'm clearing the semi-official legal hurdle with my CTO and our head counsel to full (or something close to full) disclosure of some of the architectural details, so stay tuned for as much as I'm allowed to share (and btw, for any of you that live/work/vacation in the SF Bay area, I'd be happy to discuss things over a beer :) In the meantime, yes, much of the faceting you see on the Browse and Search pages is direct Solr faceting. We made *very* liberal use of faceting-specific fields in our event and ontology documents. Similarly, we rely on the standard query handler for almost all the Solr calls. Our business logic is modelled in a CoR pattern, and we did write one command to encapsulate SolrCore/Request/Response use for our highest throughput needs - the win there was direct building into our predominant xml object model (we use XOM) via a QueryResponseXOMBuilder.build( solrRequest, solrResponse ) call. I definitely need clearance before sharing hard perf numbers (anyone working for TicketMaster on these lists? - funny, I used to use "eBay" in lines like that - see below) but I will share the fact that our response times and q/s numbers were very good out-of-the-box. We've an Ehcache-based distributed caching framework that we threw in front of the Solr servers, and our final total throughput for the Solr queries utilized to support Browse runs into the 100's of requests per sec, per Solr server. Our Search (true free-text searches) numbers are lower, but not by that much. This might be the coolest (for me, anyway) result of the entire endeavor... StubHub was recently acquired by eBay. I've been working closely with a couple of their architects over the past few weeks, and we've done a bit of theoretical, comparative analysis between our search/browse platform and theirs (which is completely home grown), and things stack up favorably for the Solr/Lucene approach, esp. when considering the *vast* difference in hardware allocation per-request. Again, if I'm allowed, more details to follow. >>...I've taken the liberty of adding stubhub to the "Powered By" Solr page... Awesome. I can't say it enough... thank you all. On 3/21/07, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 3/20/07, Cass Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Heh - it used to be in my sig ... my bad. > > > > Thanks, all. :) > > > > http://www.stubhub.com > > I tried it out... looks great! > Is the faceting stuff done with Solr too? > If so is it the Solr built-in faceting, or a custom query handler? If > the latter, can you think of ways to improve the built in faceting > that would have made things easier? > > -Yonik > -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works. - John Gaule
