lucenenet-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael O'Shea" <michael.a.os...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Next sync release Lucene.net
Date Tue, 26 Jan 2016 15:39:56 GMT
Great testimonies! Thanks!

Michael

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Erik Hatcher <erik.hatcher@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I/we(@Lucidworks and Solr, etc) take that _never_ as a challenge :)
>
> I’m pragmatic, so if the scale and technology fit the need, awesome +1!
> However great in-process search is for certain scenarios, it just doesn’t
> fit when you’re dealing with mega amounts of scale.  Billions of documents,
> or super high QPS… gotta distribute (and by definition, remote it) to
> scale.  And I think the “faster” is worth always testing out, considering
> caching (at various layers), distributed querying in parallel, and “binary”
> response formats when it comes to working with the likes of Solr.
>
> Hey, I’m a big fan of Lucene, including supporting the Lucene.net <
> http://lucene.net/> efforts.  Personally, I’m using Solr for everything,
> but to each their own, within what is pragmatically possible.  And
> sometimes you just have to build an app natively, so I totally get that.
> It’s why in the Java world we don’t _have_ to remote Solr even (using
> EmbeddedSolrServer).
>
> —
> Erik Hatcher, Senior Solutions Architect
> http://www.lucidworks.com <http://www.lucidworks.com/>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 2016, at 9:00 AM, Bart Czernicki <
> Bartosz.Czernicki@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > There definitely is a need for local in-process search technology that
> is not REST based.  .NET developers have plenty of options there: Solr,
> ElasticSearch, Azure Search (on MSFT cloud).  The network latency, https
> protocol and serialization/deserialization together are never going to be
> faster than in-process search.
> >
> > Lucene 4.x has some great improvements in search and faceting that would
> be great to have.  I see this request come up a lot.
> >
> >  <http://azure.microsoft.com/>
> >   Bart Czernicki
> >   Cloud Solution Architect | Azure SaaS ISV Solutions
> >   609.519.2060 | baczerni@microsoft.com <mailto:baczerni@microsoft.com>
> | Why Azure? <http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/overview/case-studies/>
> >
> >
> > From: Michael D Gorsich [mailto:gorsichm@dteenergy.com <mailto:
> gorsichm@dteenergy.com>]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 8:50 AM
> > To: user@lucenenet.apache.org <mailto:user@lucenenet.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: Next sync release Lucene.net <http://lucene.net/>
> >
> > Could it be it works so well there just isn't much broad-based need for
> change? Don't the newer changes to Lucene tend to cover more specialized
> needs, with correspondingly fewer developers willing to work on it, or
> needing the functions?
> >
> > I know for our org's needs Lucene 3.0.3 seems perfect as-is.
> >
> > Michael Gorsich
> > Senior Developer, DTE Energy - ITS
> > 734.586.1531 (Fermi 2)
> > gorsichm@dteenergy.com <mailto:gorsichm@dteenergy.com>
> >
> >
> > "Michael O'Shea" ---2016.01.26 08:28:28---I managed to integrate
> Lucene.Net <http://lucene.net/> into a content post-processing system on
> an Azure worker process.
> >
> > From: "Michael O'Shea" <michael.a.oshea@gmail.com <mailto:
> michael.a.oshea@gmail.com>>
> > To: "user@lucenenet.apache.org <mailto:user@lucenenet.apache.org>" <
> user@lucenenet.apache.org <mailto:user@lucenenet.apache.org>>
> > Date: 2016.01.26 08:28
> > Subject: Re: Next sync release Lucene.net <http://lucene.net/>
> >
> >
> >
> > I managed to integrate Lucene.Net <http://lucene.net/> into a content
> post-processing system on
> > an Azure worker process.
> >
> > I would be sad to see Lucene.Net <http://lucene.net/> go but it is true
> that there seems to be
> > very little uptake for the project. Weird.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Erik Hatcher <erik.hatcher@gmail.com
> <mailto:erik.hatcher@gmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Or via HTTP?  Solr! :)
> > >
> > > > On Jan 26, 2016, at 06:08, Allan, Brad (Bracknell)
> <Brad.Allan@Fiserv.com <mailto:Brad.Allan@Fiserv.com>>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This question sparked a thought....
> > > > I wonder if it's time to think about an alternate way to make Lucene
> > > available to the .NET community - some sort of JNI wrapper?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Nimesh Dhruve [mailto:nimesh@chiwater.com <mailto:
> nimesh@chiwater.com>]
> > > > Sent: 25 January 2016 18:17
> > > > To: user@lucenenet.apache.org <mailto:user@lucenenet.apache.org>
> > > > Subject: Next sync release Lucene.net <http://lucene.net/>
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I am wondering if there is any active development for Lucene.net <
> http://lucene.net/>  going
> > > on to keep it sync with Java Lucene and if so when is the next release
> for
> > > Lucene.net <http://lucene.net/> planned?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Nimesh
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > > CheckFree Solutions Limited (trading as Fiserv)
> > > > Registered Office: Eversheds House, 70 Great Bridgewater Street,
> > > Manchester, M15 ES
> > > > Registered in England: No. 2694333
> > >
> >
>
>

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