I'm wrong. Any suggestion to
lighten the indexing is always welcome.
Thank you
-Original Message-
From: Erick Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:56 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: FW: Lucene indexing vs RDBMS insertion.
That's
-
> eChuang, Chew
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: Chris Lu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 2:19 AM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: FW: Lucene indexing vs RDBMS insertion.
>
> Definitely very aggressive.
>
> Currently my exp
y.
Thanks.
---
eChuang, Chew
-Original Message-
From: Erick Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 10:03 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: FW: Lucene indexing vs RDBMS insertion.
You still haven't described how often you need to index and why.
That
ferent with searching in a
optimized index compare to a un-optimize ?
--
eChuang, Chew
-Original Message-
From: Chris Lu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 2:19 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: FW: Lucene indexing vs RDBMS insertion.
Definitely very
un-optimize ?
--
eChuang, Chew
-Original Message-
From: Chris Lu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 2:19 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: FW: Lucene indexing vs RDBMS insertion.
Definitely very aggressive.
Currently my experience is that, together with datab
?
--
eChuang, Chew
-Original Message-
From: Chris Lu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 2:19 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: FW: Lucene indexing vs RDBMS insertion.
Definitely very aggressive.
Currently my experience is that, together with
gestion and will come back to you once I tested the
solution.
Thanks,
eChuang, Chew
-Original Message-
From: Erick Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 11:11 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: FW: Lucene indexing vs RDBMS insertion.
From my perspec
ne will have enough time to index it. Anyway,
thanks for your suggestion and will come back to you once I tested the
solution.
Thanks,
eChuang, Chew
-Original Message-
From: Erick Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 11:11 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subje
rom: Erick Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 11:11 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: FW: Lucene indexing vs RDBMS insertion.
>From my perspective, this is an irrelevant question. The real question
is "is Lucene indexing fast enough for my application?&
From my perspective, this is an irrelevant question. The real question
is "is Lucene indexing fast enough for my application?". Which nobody
can answer for you, you have to experiment.
If you're building an index that's only updated every 6 months,
Lucene is certainly "fast enough". If you're re
It's better to first understand what's the computation difference
between Lucene Indexing and database insertiong.
For Lucene Indexing need to stem all words out, sort them, save them
to disk. And since Lucene is an incremental merge model, saved
documents may need to merge and saved again. There
Hi, I’m a new user to Lucene, and heard that it is a powerful tool for full
text search and I’m planning to use it in my project for data storage
purpose. Before the implementation, I could like to know whether there is
performance issue on Lucene indexing process. I have no doubt on the
retrievin
12 matches
Mail list logo
