lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Otis Gospodnetic <otis_gospodne...@yahoo.com>
Subject RE: commercial websites powered by Lucene?
Date Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:01:13 GMT
> I'd love to try Lucene with the above, but the Lucene install fails
> because
> of JavaCC issues.  Surprised more people haven't encountered this
> problem,
> as the install instructions are out of date.

The JavaCC fix is in the queue.  Check Bugzilla for details (link on
Lucene home page).

Otis


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tatu Saloranta [mailto:tatu@hypermall.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 12:26 PM
> To: Lucene Users List
> Subject: Re: commercial websites powered by Lucene?
> 
> 
> On Tuesday 24 June 2003 07:36, Ulrich Mayring wrote:
> > Chris Miller wrote:
> ...
> > Well, nothing against Lucene, but it doesn't solve your problem,
> which
> > is an overloaded DB-Server. It may temporarily alleviate the
> effects,
> > but you'll soon be at the same load again. So I'd recommend to
> install
> 
> I don't think that would necessarily be the case. Like you mention
> later on,
> indexing data stored in DB does flatten it to allow faster indexing
> (and
> retrieval), and faster in this context means more efficient, not only
> sharing
> the load between DB and search engine, but potentially lowering total
> load?
> 
> The alternative, data warehouse - like preprocessing of data, for
> faster
> search, would likely be doable too, but it's usually more useful for
> running
> reports. For actual searches Lucene does it job nicely and
> efficiently,
> biggest problems I've seen are more related to relevancy questions.
> But
> that's where tuning of Lucene ranking should be easier than trying to
> build
> your own ranking from raw database hits (except if one uses
> OracleText or
> such that's pretty much a search engine on top of DB itself).
> 
> So, to me it all comes down to "right tool for the job" aspect;  DBs
> are
> good
> at mass retrieval of data, or using aggregate functions (in read-only
> side),
> whereas dedicated search engines are better for, well, searching.
> 
> ...
> > Of course, in real life there may be political obstacles which will
> > prevent you from doing the right thing as detailed above for
> example,
> > and your only chance is to circumvent in some way - and then Lucene
> is a
> > great way to do that. But keep in mind that you are basically
> > reinventing the functionality that is already built-in in a
> database :)
> 
> It depends on type of queries, but Lucene certainly has much more
> advanced
> text searching functionality, even if indexed content comes from a
> rigid
> structure like RDBMS. I'm not sure using a ready product like Lucene
> is
> reinventing much functionality, even considering synchronization
> issues?
> 
> So I would go as far saying that for searching purposes, plain
> vanilla
> RDBMSs
> are not all that great in the first place. Even if queries need not
> use
> advanced search features (advanced as in not just using % and _ in
> addition
> to exact matches) Lucene may well offer better search performance and
> functionality.
> 
> -+ Tatu +-
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message