lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Prasenjit Mukherjee <>
Subject Re: Distributed Lucene.. - clustering as a requirement
Date Tue, 11 Apr 2006 06:45:38 GMT
Agreed, an inverted index cannot be efficiently maintained in a 
B-tree(hence RDBMS).  But I think we can(or should)  have the option of 
a  B-tree based storage for unindexed fields, whereas for indexed fields 
we can use the existing lucene's architecture.

prasen wrote:

> Dmitry Goldenberg wrote:
>> For an enterprise-level application, Lucene appears too file-system and 
> too byte-sequence-centric a technology.  Just my opinion.  The 
> Directory API is just too low-level.
> There are good reasons why Lucene is not built on top of a RDBMS.  An 
> inverted index is not efficiently maintained in a B-Tree, and B-Trees 
> are the foundation of RDBMSes.
>> I'd be OK with an RDBMS-based Directory implementation I could take 
>> and use.  But generally, I think the Lucene authors might like to 
>> take a step back and consider splitting off the repository and making 
>> it more extensible and high-level.  Perhaps something like JSR-170 
>> (Java repository API) may be a good route to go....
> If you have concrete ideas for an improvements to Lucene's Directory 
> interface, please propose them to the java-dev mailing list, ideally 
> as a patch.
> Cheers,
> Doug
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message