lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jason Rutherglen" <jason.rutherg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Using lucene as a database... good idea or bad idea?
Date Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:44:49 GMT
A possible open source solution using a page based database would be to
store the documents in http://jdbm.sourceforge.net/ which offers BTree,
Hash, and raw page based access.  One would use a primary key type of
persistent ID to lookup the document data from JDBM.

Would be a good Lucene project to implement and I think a good solution for
Ocean LUCENE-1313.  Storing documents in Lucene is fine but for a realtime
search index with many documents being deleted a lot of garbage builds up.
Frequent merging of documents files becomes IO intensive.

Of course one issue with JDBM which I am not sure other SQL page based
systems do is load individual fields directly from disk rather than load the
entire page into RAM first, then load the pages. Maybe it does not matter.

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 9:53 PM, John Evans <john@jpevans.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I have successfully used Lucene in the "tradtiional" way to provide
> full-text search for various websites.  Now I am tasked with developing a
> data-store to back a web crawler.  The crawler can be configured to
> retrieve
> arbitrary fields from arbitrary pages, so the result is that each document
> may have a random assortment of fields.  It seems like Lucene may be a
> natural fit for this scenario since you can obviously add arbitrary fields
> to each document and you can store the actually data in the database. I've
> done some research to make sure that it would meet all of our individual
> requirements (that we can iterate over documents, update (delete/replace)
> documents, etc.) and everything looks good.  I've also seen a couple of
> references around the net to other people trying similar things... however,
> I know it's not meant to be used this way, so I thought I would post here
> and ask for guidance?  Has anyone done something similar?  Is there any
> specific reason to think this is a bad idea?
>
> The one thing that I am least certain about his how well it will scale.  We
> may reach the point where we have tens of millions of documents and a high
> percentage of those documents may be relatively large (10k-50k each).  We
> actually would NOT be expecting/needing Lucene's normal extreme fast text
> search times for this, but we would need reasonable times for adding new
> documents to the index, retrieving documents by ID (for iterating over all
> documents), optimizing the index after a series of changes, etc.
>
> Any advice/input/theories anyone can contribute would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> -
> John
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message