Mailing-List: contact general-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-Id: <200602150633.k1F6XGRr031945@smtp.ryley.com>
From: "James" <james@ryley.com>
To: <general@lucene.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Lucene VS SQL Server
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 00:33:16 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: AcYx9DeGlCBpDA1CRAuRAD1vu/sCEAABTDrw
In-Reply-To: <50a1290602142153k6723720eu10cd45442104e732@mail.gmail.com>

This isn't even a contest, unless SQL Server has improved greatly since I
last tried it.  I've also benchmarked MySQL.  They cannot handle large
collections.  That being said, they are very convenient, and your data set
isn't that large, so perhaps you should benchmark it and see if you can get
away with a "normal" database.  If not, Lucene will have no problem at all
with a collection the size of yours.

Sincerely,
James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lavafish@gmail.com [mailto:lavafish@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:54 PM
> To: general@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Lucene VS SQL Server
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm looking to get some idea of which full-text engine is faster and
> scales
> better: SQL Server or Lucene.  My index will contain millions of short
> documents of approximately 100 words. Please advise of the pros and cons.
> 
> Thank You,
> Greg