lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Praveen Peddi" <ppe...@contextmedia.com>
Subject Re: Opinions: Using Lucene as a thin database
Date Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:07:16 GMT
Even we use lucene for similar purpose except that we index and store quite 
a few fields. Infact I also update partial documents as people suggested. I 
store all the indexed fields so I don't have to build the whole document 
again while updating partial document. The reason we do this is due to the 
speed. I found the lucene search on a millions objects is 4 to 5 times 
faster than our oracle queries (ofcourse this might be due to our pitiful 
database design :) ). It works great so far. the only caveat that we had 
till now was incremental updates. But now I am implementing real-time 
updates so that the data in lucene index is almost always in sync with data 
in database. So now, our search does not goto the database at all.

Praveen
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kevin L. Cobb" <kevin.cobb@emergint.com>
To: <lucene-user@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 9:40 AM
Subject: Opinions: Using Lucene as a thin database


I use Lucene as a legitimate search engine which is cool. But, I am also
using it as a simple database too. I build an index with a couple of
keyword fields that allows me to retrieve values based on exact matches
in those fields. This is all I need to do so it works just fine for my
needs. I also love the speed. The index is small enough that it is
wicked fast. Was wondering if anyone out there was doing the same of it
there are any dissenting opinions on using Lucene for this purpose.









---------------------------------------------------------------------
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