Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 87792 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2008 08:08:51 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 28 Nov 2008 08:08:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 23016 invoked by uid 500); 28 Nov 2008 08:09:01 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-general-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 22992 invoked by uid 500); 28 Nov 2008 08:09:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 22981 invoked by uid 99); 28 Nov 2008 08:09:01 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:09:01 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.6 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,WHOIS_MYPRIVREG X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.139.236.158] (HELO kuber.nabble.com) (216.139.236.158) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 08:07:33 +0000 Received: from isper.nabble.com ([192.168.236.156]) by kuber.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1L5yOh-00018J-U2 for general@lucene.apache.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:08:19 -0800 Message-ID: <20730335.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:08:19 -0800 (PST) From: Mike_SearchGuru To: general@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Which one is better - Lucene OR Google Search Appliance In-Reply-To: <492F1D1E.6010001@holsman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-From: taherjamali52@gmail.com References: <20725398.post@talk.nabble.com> <492F1D1E.6010001@holsman.net> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org OK basically we ahve 8 million pdf's to index and we have good technical people in our company. question is is lucene slower than GSA in terms of indexing pdf's? are there any costs for licenses if used commercially. If yes then what are the costs? what are teh downsides of Lucene as opposed to GSA. these are my questions and if you can answerr them then it will be great help. Thanks Ali Ian Holsman wrote: > > Mike_SearchGuru wrote: >> We are evaluating Lucene at the moment and also considering Google Search >> Appliance. Is there anyone who can guide us on which one is better apart >> from Google being expensive as we have 8 million PDF's to index. >> >> Can someoen help us by clearly identifying whcih one is better. >> > Hi Mike. > > Firstly GSA is so much more than just a search library, which is what > lucene is. In your analysis you should be looking at things like Solr > (which will give you a web interface to the lucene library), and Tika or > nutch to actually put your documents into the index itself. > > as for which is better, we have no idea what your requirements are > (besides from wanting to avoid spending money) or what your > organization's technical capabilities are (are you willing to spend 1-3 > getting up to speed with the open source tools for example) so it will > be hard for us to judge. > > > Regards > Ian > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Which-one-is-better---Lucene-OR-Google-Search-Appliance-tp20725398p20730335.html Sent from the Lucene - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.