Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of chenjian1227@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.82.228 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=A6yoDJW+Z7LqQP6a6fnVz2+NDo35VFO3U5DMXT4306kSVN0NSj8teXy7n2g8uY+DHOtVeKjRdEBjyfWvXEDVqn7S/2Y9ynF3toVe+45wh0dOTciydHBQwdpRamkHbSTRXZ3+YGqLvSwY4Te27lu5Bvk4W6/l3tfN4mYMjWdpgQA=
Message-ID: <7ca123910702131541v717d4839ma0294ab76788f62a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:41:15 -0800
From: "jian chen" <chenjian1227@gmail.com>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: NewIndexModifier - - - DeletingIndexWriter
In-Reply-To: <160A7A72-1877-4EEA-B984-13296EE9CEFA@ix.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_69990_13160070.1171410075555"
References: <204416.59450.qm@web50310.mail.yahoo.com>
	 <c68e39170702081304j77734840ma7f854331bf8a7e1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <45CBA430.2010100@mikemccandless.com> <45CCAF46.40900@apache.org>
	 <c68e39170702091249m57867aa0q146139db9ee2def2@mail.gmail.com>
	 <45CCE0C6.1080600@apache.org>
	 <c68e39170702091312j24d048a9i5e239b9218d3ea21@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7ca123910702091831g57320bafge90e0d51c497f9a6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20070213071710.GA29206@fermat.math.technion.ac.il>
	 <160A7A72-1877-4EEA-B984-13296EE9CEFA@ix.netcom.com>

------=_Part_69990_13160070.1171410075555
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

I totally second Robert's thought.

My concern is, to get the raw speed of Lucene, you got to get to the basics.
If we start to apply layers upon layers of code to just mask off the
internals of Lucene, it will not do any good.

An example perhaps is the Windoze vs. Linux. As an end user, you get all the
fancy features in Windoze, but, as a software developer, you get frustrated
when not able to access the low level stuff easily. Linux is good in this
aspect.

I think the Lucene library should be designed simple and efficient in order
to allow tweaking for raw speed. That's the spirit for large scale search
engines, right? Even Google file system has to sacrifice some design for raw
speed, i.e., files are append-only.

Cheers,

Jian

On 2/13/07, robert engels <rengels@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Lucene is not a word processor. It is a development library. I think
> an understanding of any development library is essential to using it
> properly. Once you have even a basic understanding of the Lucene
> design, it is very clear as to why deletes are performed using the
> IndexReader.
>
> If you attempt to use Lucene without understanding its use proper and
> design (there are many people on this list that think it is a
> database) you will probably get most things wrong.
>
> On Feb 13, 2007, at 1:17 AM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 09, 2007, jian chen wrote about "Re: NewIndexModifier -
> > - - DeletingIndexWriter":
> >> Following the Lucene dev mailing list for sometime now, I am
> >> concerned that
> >> lucene is slowing losing all the simplicity and become a
> >> complicated mess.
> >> I think keeping IndexReader and IndexWriter the way it works in
> >> 1.2 even is
> >> better, no?
> >> Software should be designed to be simple to use and maintain,
> >> that's my
> >> concern.
> >
> > Hi, I wonder - how do you see the original IndexReader and IndexWriter
> > separation "simple to use"?
> >
> > Every single user of Lucene that I know, encountered very quickly
> > the problem
> > of how to delete documents; Many of them started to use
> > IndexModifier, and
> > then suddenly realized its performance makes it unusable; Many (as
> > you can
> > also see from examples sent to the user list once in a while) ended
> > up writing
> > their own complex code for buffering deletes (and similar solutions).
> >
> > So for users, the fact that an index "writer" cannot delete, but
> > rather an
> > index "reader" (!) is the one that can delete documents, wasn't
> > simplicity -
> > it was simply confusing, and hard to use. It meant each user needed
> > to work
> > hard to get around this limitation. Wouldn't it be better if Lucene
> > included
> > this functionality that many (if not most) users need, out of the box?
> >
> > --
> > Nadav Har'El                        |     Tuesday, Feb 13 2007, 25
> > Shevat 5767
> > IBM Haifa Research Lab
> > |-----------------------------------------
> >                                     |Just remember that if the
> > world didn't
> > http://nadav.harel.org.il           |suck, we would all fall off.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

------=_Part_69990_13160070.1171410075555--