lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From findbestopensource <findbestopensou...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Performance of storing data in Lucene vs other (No)SQL Databases
Date Mon, 21 May 2012 05:07:58 GMT
Hi,

Lucene is not a data store. You should store data in file system / DB and
store only the reference key and data related to display summary results as
part of Lucene.

Usually in most application, once the search is performed list of search
results with just few information will be displayed. Once user click on any
search results, complete data related to the record will be displayed.

You may need to store the data to display summary results otherwise you
need to lookup for every result which will slow down the performance.

Regrads
Aditya
www.findbestopensource.com





On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Konstantyn Smirnov <injecteer@yahoo.com>wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> apologies, if this question was already asked before.
>
> If I need to store a lot of data (say, millions of documents), what would
> perform better (in terms of reads/writes/scalability etc.): Lucene with
> stored fields (Field.Store.YES) or another NoSql DB like Mongo or Couch?
>
> Does it make sense to index and store the data separately?
>
> TIA
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Performance-of-storing-data-in-Lucene-vs-other-No-SQL-Databases-tp3984704.html
> Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

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