Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 7774 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2011 06:52:17 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 14 Feb 2011 06:52:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 45094 invoked by uid 500); 14 Feb 2011 06:52:15 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 44980 invoked by uid 500); 14 Feb 2011 06:52:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@hbase.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 44972 invoked by uid 99); 14 Feb 2011 06:52:13 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 06:52:13 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.210.169] (HELO mail-iy0-f169.google.com) (209.85.210.169) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 06:52:04 +0000 Received: by iyi20 with SMTP id 20so4632581iyi.14 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 22:51:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.42.178.197 with SMTP id bn5mr4472248icb.298.1297666303399; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 22:51:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.213.129 with HTTP; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 22:51:23 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [67.160.196.149] In-Reply-To: References: From: Ted Dunning Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 22:51:23 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: HBase and Lucene for realtime search To: user@hbase.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6e8f4a0d15bc049c387b5f X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --90e6ba6e8f4a0d15bc049c387b5f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I would avoid this, personally. Serious transactions and complex queries are pretty much incompatible with simple implementation and large scale. Flow based updates and write-behind are more the norm. On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Jason Rutherglen < jason.rutherglen@gmail.com> wrote: > > I haven't seen any search sites that absolutely need transactional > > consistency. > > While this is true, databases usually require this? And so this is > somewhat of an out-of-the-box view on search, and this's why it's > perhaps better to frame it more in the context databases, eg, > transactions, consistency, and complex queries. --90e6ba6e8f4a0d15bc049c387b5f--