lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Remy Amouroux <>
Subject Re: lucene vs mysql
Date Sat, 12 Oct 2002 06:40:15 GMT
Le ven 11/10/2002 à 21:03, Cédric Grun a écrit :
> I'm currently using mysql for storing file which I index previously with 
> lucene. I've seen there is a new function in mysql which consists in 
> full text searching.
> I'd like to know which is best between mysql full text search and lucene 
> search.

Before using Lucene, we looked into Mysql for full text search

Extracted from Documentation :-)
"MySQL uses a very simple parser to split text into words. A ``word'' is
any sequence of characters consisting of letters, numbers, `'', and `_'.
Any ``word'' that is present in the stopword list or is just too short
(3 characters or less) is ignored."

For us, it was the main reason we decided to not use it: tuning what is
indexed through the Analyzing phase is really a plus in the case of big
number of documents.

We tried to use mysql also with a third party indexer using it as index
storage (mnoGoSearch). The complex requests we had to do (specific to
our case, that's right) was heavily loading MySQL on the platform we use
(IBM AIX on multi-proc). With Lucene, the same service is 100x more
robust (and I'm conservative). 

>From my point of view, I will use Mysql full text search in conjunction
with other sql features (joins, aggregation function).
If you think about creating documents from several sources, store them
in Mysql in order to search them with MySQL MATCH function, I would say
that it will cost you the same development to use Lucene with the same
or better performance, and better tunning possibilities.

We are also heavily using MySQL for pure database searches and we are
happy with the performances/price ratio, I promise :-)


E-mail :
Kelkoo R&D Director (

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message