Mailing-List: contact general-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of ted.dunning@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.46.31 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :content-type;
        b=iQoDCjjePuQb0lSFGPPHl/b2PXDFpEedbWyIcGUmDAbyJrf79YD48RsSR8X6pK4opk
         G/1W/E3MqMvg0qpaPsPuQjckGqWNJVebLzQ1WWCoA0WkkoVhYS2K6z0Jhh09CR/Pn1A3
         ODcs4PpvilQQiy5J6QPMXMddEASlveM6SdLKU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <23987086.post@talk.nabble.com>
References: <23987086.post@talk.nabble.com>
From: Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:27:04 -0700
Message-ID: <c7d45fc70906111327xbf3dd8au33083853cc7b85ea@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Performance: Field.Store.YES vs. Field.Store.NO + DB
To: general@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001517573df275cf2b046c186b8b

--001517573df275cf2b046c186b8b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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

--001517573df275cf2b046c186b8b--