Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 48236 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2007 06:18:51 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 24 Oct 2007 06:18:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 81946 invoked by uid 500); 24 Oct 2007 06:18:30 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 81914 invoked by uid 500); 24 Oct 2007 06:18:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 81903 invoked by uid 99); 24 Oct 2007 06:18:30 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:18:30 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of luz290@gmail.com designates 64.233.184.237 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.233.184.237] (HELO wr-out-0506.google.com) (64.233.184.237) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 06:18:33 +0000 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id c55so79293wra for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:18:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; bh=tvq/RITcBVY3sQoAeIW0OUW973pv36Yy5u0vCLq6fKg=; b=Ub4mBscA70PShACtY1N07nuxcliUQWmRnLw+kJHp5v3m2KFRwY9VmsEblcbHnzZBM0k+LeVGyVIlyF6e9s+9lYzhkLfaaMlZSXM2ZY4Oo16oYCrjB0EmWcpvR5ZdIf34GpBQQwdMm1x/WIkvNzV96HWvVg97WBL7Cbhvimspj0s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=V5UopdQD22frqrSNCPAVbVVSYKYO1aFlx1hEJPbeXfil7NcD/IImzTpGpI+4/XaHKZOAmF8X7RErmmgB29vWnxzz5/LrPBzMg/j60YklXywmaPXO8OggbWGjRe0EZ6suR35V3sH7pHI2Dddixt8vmPfbwVRW4kTuzo/lKXXv0nU= Received: by 10.142.237.20 with SMTP id k20mr19553wfh.1193206690614; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:18:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.225.3 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:18:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 02:18:10 -0400 From: "lucene user" To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Lucene Queries Over User-Editable Dynamic Categories of Documents MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2632_20710612.1193206690592" X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org ------=_Part_2632_20710612.1193206690592 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Folks! We are building a web-based multi-user system. Users of our system are able to categorize items that they have found into groups of related documents. We would like users to be able to search these document groups and rapidly find matches. Each user might have ten of these categories and might have perhaps a few hundred documents in each. These categories might be highly dynamic, with users adding and deleting documents from these categories many times a day. How might we use Lucene to perform searches limited to these very dynamic and end-user editable categories? Any ideas for how we might do this efficiently? If all the data were in a SQL database, we could run a subquery that returned the IDs of the items in categories and use that to limit the results of the super query. Currently we do not plan to maintain the information about the end-user's categories in the Lucene index at all, or not in a big, main Lucene index anyway. What our the reasonable options for handling this? What are the performance implications of various choices? Thanks! ------=_Part_2632_20710612.1193206690592--