jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexander Klimetschek <aklim...@day.com>
Subject Re: Potential performance improvement?
Date Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:33:58 GMT
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 13:28, Marcel Reutegger
<marcel.reutegger@gmx.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 14:47, Alexander Klimetschek <aklimets@day.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 13:33, Marcel Reutegger
>> <marcel.reutegger@gmx.net> wrote:
>>> jackrabbit does it in a similar way for quite some time now.
>>
>> To me it sounds like this partial-temporary-indexing feature should be
>> part of Lucene directly (configurable, of course).
>
> well, it's not that easy. jackrabbit makes use of many assumptions and
> implementation specific properties of the content that is indexed.
> e.g. nodes are uniquely identifiable and it is not required to
> immediately persist the index on commit. it is sufficient that a redo
> log contains enough information to replay the changes. all this cannot
> be moved easily into a more generic library like lucene. however there
> is interesting work going on with the near-real-time index that we
> might want to use in the future.

I see. The near-real-time index sounds great (however, "real-time"
always has to be taken carefully ;-)).

Regards,
Alex

-- 
Alexander Klimetschek
alexander.klimetschek@day.com

Mime
View raw message