incubator-bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Martin <gary.mar...@wandisco.com>
Subject Re: [Apache Bloodhound] Proposals/BEP-0004/ResourceQuery added
Date Wed, 05 Dec 2012 14:17:02 GMT
On 05/12/12 13:43, Andrej Golcov wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> It does worry me that it might not be the best idea to support lucene as
>> well as existing syntax but if there are existing parsers for the lucene
>> style syntax it may be OK. Perhaps there is a way of using Whoosh to
>> provide parsing services for us.
> Do you mean to use Whoosh query parser to parse Bloodhound Search query?
> That will bring us a lot functionality with much less effort and bugs.
>  From the first look, Whoosh query syntax
> (http://packages.python.org/Whoosh/querylang.html) covers at least 90%
> of our requirements. According to Whoosh code, it can be also
> extended: http://packages.python.org/Whoosh/parsing.html. In case of
> PyLucene usage, we will provide query mapping from Whoosh to Lucen.
>
> There are few drawbacks that I can see:
>   - we have to follow Whoosh syntax and not imagine ourselves, at least
> in basics  - may be it  is not a drawback :)

Given the qparser plugin system that you have already hinted at, it 
should not be so bad if we want to add syntax.

>   - Bloodhound Search plugin will depend on Whoosh even if other search
> backend is used e.g. PyLucene
>
> If we can leave with this, I vote for starting prototype with Whoosh
> syntax and parser since it will speedup features delivery. Anyway, we
> can implement our own parser later.
>
> Regards, Andrej

Yes, I entirely agree with that approach. I would be very happy to see 
some early search improvements!

Cheers,
     Gary

Mime
View raw message