Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 39563 invoked from network); 11 May 2004 04:58:32 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 11 May 2004 04:58:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 69802 invoked by uid 500); 11 May 2004 04:59:14 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-user-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 69782 invoked by uid 500); 11 May 2004 04:59:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Lucene Users List" Reply-To: "Lucene Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list lucene-user@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 69766 invoked by uid 98); 11 May 2004 04:59:13 -0000 Received: from matt@ctx.com.au by hermes.apache.org by uid 82 with qmail-scanner-1.20 (clamuko: 0.70. Clear:RC:0(66.216.98.59):. Processed in 0.254816 secs); 11 May 2004 04:59:13 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Mail-From: matt@ctx.com.au via hermes.apache.org X-Qmail-Scanner: 1.20 (Clear:RC:0(66.216.98.59):. Processed in 0.254816 secs) Received: from unknown (HELO rs9.luxsci.com) (66.216.98.59) by hermes.apache.org with SMTP; 11 May 2004 04:59:13 -0000 Received: from [192.168.70.246] (ppp152-16.lns1.cbr1.internode.on.net [150.101.152.16]) (authenticated bits=0) by rs9.luxsci.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i4B4wD51031934 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 23:58:14 -0500 Message-ID: <40A05DB5.70909@ctx.com.au> Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 14:59:33 +1000 From: Matt Quail User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Windows/20040502) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lucene Users List Subject: Re: Mixing database and lucene searches References: <40A04C41.1070400@ctx.com.au> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: hermes.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Glen Stampoultzis wrote: > Just one comment about your strategy for combining db and lucene searches. > It seems that it would slow down significantly the larger the results, > although I can't see a better way to go about it. For example if the lucene > search matched 100 records and the database searched 1,000,000 records > you're faced with iterating through a set of 1,000,000 records for a result > that couldn't possibly be more than 100 actual records. Yeah, I know. It totally sucks. Putting all your fields into the index is the best thing... *and* it makes your searches way faster at the same time. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org