lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <lavaf...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Lucene VS SQL Server
Date Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:44:53 GMT
Thank you for all your comments.  From what i researched on my own, the new
SQL Server 2005 fulltext functionality is highly improved.  Microsoft tested
it and said that it performs well on 2 billion records (although the size
and type of info in each record is unpublished).  After using lucene for a
previous project, i found myself having to do a lot of extra work and taking
a similar approach to Fernando's where i implemented a webservice that would
encapsulate lucene.NET APIs.  I had to worry about finding the right way to
update the index without disturbing the user experience, build some sort of
replication, and keep my index in sync with a PostreSQL db.  Lucene
requires building a lot of this functionality that is already in SQL
Server.  But my primary concern is performance, and in terms of comparing
Lucene to PostgreSQL's TSearch2, it's not even close to a competition.
Lucene's performance is insanely awesome in comparison.

-Greg


On 2/15/06, Fernando Luiz Engelmann Junior <fernando@softexpert.com> wrote:
>
> I was trying to say that if you wanna choose a database solution, try
> oracle instead SQL Server. Not the fact that oracle is faster or better than
> lucene.
>
> Fernando
>
> Pasha Bizhan wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
>     I donĀ“t know if you have already worked with oracle, but
> if you want a database solution, try the oracle one. In my
> oppinion the full-text function of this database is the best.
>
>
>
> Lucene can reindex and update data faster than Oracle.
>
> Pasha Bizhan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Atenciosamente
>   ------------------------------
> *Fernando Luiz Engelmann Jr.*
> *Desenvolvimento de Sistemas
> SoftExpert Quality Software
> +55 (47) 2101-9955
> http://www.softexpert.com
> *
> ------------------------------
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message