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: Lucene vs. in-DB-full-text-searching
Date Fri, 18 Feb 2005 22:31:30 GMT
You are right.
Since there are C++ and now C ports of Lucene, it would be interesting
to integrate them directly with DBs, so that the RDBMS full-text search
under the hood is actually powered by one of the Lucene ports.

Otis

--- David Spencer <dave-lucene-user@tropo.com> wrote:

> Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
> 
> > 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. 
> 
> Yeah, but in theory, in the ideal world :), it should't be any slower
> - 
> there's no magic Lucene has that DB's don't.  And the big advantage
> of 
> it being embedded in the DB is the index can always be up to date,
> just 
> as if you had Lucene updating the index based on a trigger. You don't
> 
> need any separate cron job to periodically update the index.
> 
> But this brings up - has anyone run Lucene off a database trigger or
> are 
>   triggers known to be slow and bad for this use?
> 
> > 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.
> > 
> > Otis
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- "Steven J. Owens" <puffmail@darksleep.com> 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
> >>puff@darksleep.com
> >>
> >>"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." - http://darksleep.com/notablog
> >>
> >>
>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>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
> > 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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


Mime
View raw message