lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Otis Gospodnetic <>
Subject Re: Lucene vs. in-DB-full-text-searching
Date Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:38:40 GMT
The most obvious answer is that the full-text indexing features of
RDBMS's are not as good (as fast) as Lucene.  MySQL, PostgreSQL,
Oracle, MS SQL Server etc. all have full-text indexing/searching
features, but I always hear people complaining about the speed.  A
person from a well-known online bookseller told me recently that Lucene
was about 10x faster that MySQL for full-text searching, and I am
currently helping someone get away from MySQL and into Lucene for
performance reasons.


--- "Steven J. Owens" <> wrote:

> Hi,
>      I was rambling to some friends about an idea to build a
> cache-aware JDBC driver wrapper, to make it easier to keep a lucene
> index of a database up to date.
>      They asked me a question that I have to take seriously, which is
> that most RDBMSes provide some built-in fulltext searching -
> postgres,
> mysql, even oracle - why not use that instead of adding another layer
> of caching?
>      I have to take this question seriously, especially since it
> reminds me a lot of what Doug has often said to folks contemplating
> doing similar things (caching query results, etc) with Lucene.
>      Has anybody done some serious investigation into this, and could
> summarize the pros and cons?
> -- 
> Steven J. Owens
> "I'm going to make broad, sweeping generalizations and strong,
>  declarative statements, because otherwise I'll be here all night and
>  this document will be four times longer and much less fun to read.
>  Take it all with a grain of salt." -
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message