lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ivan Brusic <>
Subject Re: Query for "cache" mechanism to used
Date Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:42:51 GMT
A cache should be independent of the data store. Ehcache works well in
front of Lucene as well as a (relational) database. However, caches
work great for key/value data, so the cache value would be a result
set. Is caching the grouped result good enough?


On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Hiren Shah <> wrote:
> I have a requirement to get results of search query within 1 second for a
> database table.The database table is returning results slowly at this
> point.A table has to be moved to a cache and searched from there so that
> search results come fast.I want to do google type page refresh on my
> existing search page -- which means the page should refresh as the user
> types.
> In order to acheive this the search results should return within one
> second.My database is teradata.Its queries are taking 2 to 3 seconds at
> least.Hence i want to look for other options like caching.I want to use
> cache so that the resuls come fast.
> Columns are
> *company , Id , Industry, parent ...4 more*
> Its a search page.So if user types "ja" all items starting from ja like
> *company ------------- Id ------------- Industry --------------parent*
> jaico ------------- 222 -------------paints ------------- Jaico asia
> Jammy fruits------------- 232-------------food------------- jammy
> International
> The table contains 3.2 million rows and there are 8 columns that are
> present.The search data need to return all 8 columns.Considering byte wise
> there are 150 chars per row.So total bytes are 3.2 million * 150 chars =
> 480 Megabytes .I need to store this much data in cache and then fire search
> queries like sql (grouping ,like ,order by) across them.What would be the
> best option to use in this case
>   1. ehcache
>   2. jboss cache
>   3. Inifinispan
>   4. Apache Lucene
> Please suggest which option is good .Is it better to do caching in memory
> or to use lucene?
> *What need to be cached?-->* It is a table of 3.2 million rows with 8
> columns.
> *Why it is to be cached?-->* It is to be cached so that search results come
> *faster* than sql query.If i use sql query it takes very long time.Hence i
> want to move towards caching data.

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

View raw message