lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Otis Gospodnetic <otis_gospodne...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Query performance, bitset, btree
Date Mon, 30 May 2011 01:23:11 GMT
Hello,

I'm guessing both Lucene and a DB (relational or not) may be about the same 
here.  Query like name="John" and age=30 and city="London" could be done with 
either, but if you think you'll need to expand those queries to include 
full-text search, then I'd go with Lucene (or Solr).

Otis
----
Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/



----- Original Message ----
> From: "wave@vancameron.net" <wave@vancameron.net>
> To: general@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Sat, May 28, 2011 2:28:00 AM
> Subject: Query performance, bitset, btree
> 
> Hello, I'm new to Lucene. I have a question about performance. I have  a
> structured dataset split up into fields, for example name, age, city,  state.
> I want to query this dataset for exact matches to fields, e.g.  name="John"
> and age=30 and city="London". For such a dataset, how will  performance of
> Lucene compare with a database table with an appropriate index  (e.g. index
> on name, age, city)? The dataset is pretty static so index  update
> performance is not an issue for me.
> 
> From what I understand,  Lucene uses bitset indexes while a typical database
> index will use a b-tree  (or hash). I'll admit I don't fully understand what
> a bitset index is. What  types of datasets and queries take best advantage of
> bitset indexes vs a  btree index?
> 
> --
> View this message in context: 
>http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Query-performance-bitset-btree-tp2995495p2995495.html
>
> Sent  from the Lucene - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 

Mime
View raw message