lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Salman Akram <salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net>
Subject Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
Date Wed, 06 Aug 2014 07:05:54 GMT
Thanks everyone!! This has been really helpful discussion and in short
based on this we have taken the decision to stick to SOLR.


On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Jack Krupansky <jack@basetechnology.com>
wrote:

> And neither project supports the Lucene faceting module, correct?
>
> And the ES web site says: "WARNING: Facets are deprecated and will be
> removed in a future release. You are encouraged to migrate to aggregations
> instead."
>
> That makes it more of an apples/oranges comparison.
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Toke Eskildsen
> Sent: Monday, August 4, 2014 3:33 AM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
>
> Subject: Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch
>
> On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 08:31 +0200, Harald Kirsch wrote:
>
>> As for performance, I would expect that it is very hard to find one of
>> the two technologies to be generally ahead. Except for plain blunders
>> that may be lurking in the code, I would think the inner loops, the
>> stuff that really burns CPU cycles, all happens in Lucene, which is the
>> same for both.
>>
>
> Faceting/Aggregation is implemented independently and with different
> designs for Solr and Elasticsearch. I would be surprised if memory
> overhead and performance were about the same for this functionality.
>
> - Toke Eskildsen, State and University Library, Denmark
>
>


-- 
Regards,

Salman Akram

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