It is a blurry line between the need to use a DBMS and lucene. For now Lucene works fine for my search needs and I use Terracotta to persist application state. So no need for a DBMS at all currently - although under the hood Terracotta uses BDB JE.
Does Solr's range impementation use the large Boolean SHOULD queries? Karsten F. wrote: > > Hi John, > > about "integration other index implementation": > Sounds like you need a DBMS with some lucene features. > There was a post about using lucene in Oracle: > http://www.nabble.com/Using-lucene-as-a-database...-good-idea-or-bad-idea--to18703473.html#a18741137 > and > http://www.nabble.com/Oracle-and-Lucene-Integration-to7501262.html#a7501262 > > But normaly for a particular problem there is a solution with lucene > (example: you should not index timestamps in lucene, but you can A) index > year, month and day or B) generate your own filter which used the > (cached) timestamp from a stored field or C) use solr (which contains > timestamp-range implementation out of the box). > > Best regards > Karsten > > > John Patterson wrote: >> >> Hi, I know that Lucene uses an inverted index which makes range queries >> and great-than/less-than type queries very slow for continuous data types >> like times, latitude, etc. Last time I looked they were converted into >> huge OR queries and so had a maximum clause limit. >> >> I was wondering if any work had been done on integrating other index >> implementations? >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Index-types-tp19177298p19179175.html Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
