Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of erickerickson@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.92.168 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=pbJmVY7MvuNr+x21cgzIikRMLECxlor3QfiWnmg/Yw4bg400tPkwBOxYgQDfWfXTsQMiTGsIgmbkfoajjpJa8NfJKA/iE6ItPaKoaRkBxJHseT3+iAxBSe+9pUaqHJMgteIFxniubSm70xoWLv9JRUQcnbi54jV8RMPdccSENRA=
Message-ID: <359a92830706150811h751a208bwa0cc65c7853ee1a1@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:11:09 -0400
From: "Erick Erickson" <erickerickson@gmail.com>
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: FW: Lucene indexing vs RDBMS insertion.
In-Reply-To: <003d01c7af1a$bc11eb90$3435c2b0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_37908_27392209.1181920269195"
References: <003d01c7af1a$bc11eb90$3435c2b0$@com>

------=_Part_37908_27392209.1181920269195
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

>From my perspective, this is an irrelevant question. The real question
is "is Lucene indexing fast enough for my application?". Which nobody
can answer for you, you have to experiment.

If you're building an index that's only updated every 6 months,
Lucene is certainly "fast enough". If you're recreating the
index every 6 seconds, it's a different question.

So, I recommend that you create a test application that does
nothing except read your source, do whatever parsing you
need to do and does NOT index it at all. Record the time it
takes.

Then try the same thing WITH indexing and record the difference.

Then, to get a sense of the dimension of the problem, try
substituting inserting into the RDBMS instead of the Lucene
index.

Once you have numbers, you can make better decisions
And people can give you better advice,  especially if you
include more detail of your design.

Best
Erick

On 6/15/07, Chew Yee Chuang <yeechuang@tecforte.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, I'm  a new user to Lucene, and heard that it is a powerful tool for
> full
> text search and I'm planning to use it in my project for data storage
> purpose. Before the implementation, I could like to know whether there is
> performance issue on Lucene indexing process. I have no doubt on the
> retrieving and searching feature in Lucene but the indexing process. I
> have
> tested my current system to insert 1000 records in RDBMS storage it took
> about 1 seconds. Thus, if I change my solution to Lucene, can Lucene
> indexing process perform faster than RDBMS ? I have go through some of the
> article talking about the "MergeFactor" and "MaxMergeDocs" parameter for
> fine tune the indexing process, but no comparison between Lucene indexing
> process and RDBMS insertion. Thus, hope someone who have experience in
> Lucene can provide this information or some article that discuss between
> Lucene and RDBMS.
>
>
>
> I really appreciate any help in this. Thanks
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.16/849 - Release Date: 6/14/2007
> 12:44 PM
>
>

------=_Part_37908_27392209.1181920269195--