lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Performance: Field.Store.YES vs. Field.Store.NO + DB
Date Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:27:04 GMT
A traditional database is not normally used for this.  Look at something
like Voldemort <http://simonwillison.net/2009/Jan/17/voldemort/> or
Hbase<http://hadoop.apache.org/hbase/>or even
memcache <http://www.danga.com/memcached/> instead.

Also, you database is moderately large, but not massively so. With a decent
sharding system like Katta, you should be able to store the text in your
index and still get good retrieval performance.

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 12:00 PM, ywlee522 <ywlee522@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have read in several places that actual values (text) can be stored in
> DB,
> while lucene only manages index with Field.Store.NO
>



-- 
Ted Dunning, CTO
DeepDyve

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