Hi all,

Looking at the amount of replies wrt to this topic it seems there's much 
interest in full text searching.

It's really hard to tell how one would expect this feature to be implemented in 
couchdb in such a way that it would supersede the nice couchdb-lucene combo.

That said, if you want a _really simple_ (and probably bad solution performance 
wise!) fulltext search implementation, have a look at couchdb lists.

You decide which _view is sent to the _list function; within the _list function 
you can implement your full text search by inspecting the document data in 
javascript.

This setup at least allows for replication of the fts functionality and might 
be just enough for the OP.



Cheers, dennis



----- Reply message -----
From: "Zdravko Gligic" <zgli...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 13:49
Subject: Full text search - is it coming? If yes, approx when.
To: "user@couchdb.apache.org" <user@couchdb.apache.org>

I have a bit tricky use case of super tagging or rather a somewhat
hierarchical docs categorization. Several CouchDB gurus have suggested
that I should look at Lucene and such.  My problem is hosting because
I would most rather go with a cloud solution such as Cloudant and
forthcoming (I hope it's still forthcoming) CouchBase.  Comparatively,
I have very little amount of data - large number of tiny docs that are
indexed every which way possible - such that the size of views dwarfs
the size of docs.

The full-text-searching problem is best illustrated by the
full-text-searching hosting state of affairs at Cloudant and CouchBase
- the only two commercial companies worth mentioning within the
CouchDb community.  Neither one uses Lucene out of the box and only
Cloudant has their own solution.  This means that I could not use a
redundancy-performance perfect Master-Master replication that is
hosted by both.  This is why either full-text-searching needs to
become CouchDb's internal first citizen or our hosting friends need to
internalize and make Lucene their first class citizen.

P.S. I love both but ...

Reply via email to