Hi ilwes,
Did you noticed the thread
http://www.nabble.com/Lucene-vs.-Database-td19755932.html
?
I think it is usefull for the question about using lucene storage fields
even if you already have the information in DB.
Best regards
Karsten
ilwes wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I googled, searched t
I like the point about doing things the easiest way possible until it starts
to become a problem.
Thank you very much for your answers and for the insight how you handle this
issue. You helped me a lot.
Ilwes
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Best-Practice-for-Lucene-Searc
Do you have a reasonable expectation that performance is going
to be a problem? The reason I ask is that I'm always suspicious
of efficiency arguments when "things are working fine". Unless and
until you can confidently predict that you're going to hit a
performance issue, do it the easiest way pos
...@thetaphi.de
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Lea [mailto:ian@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 4:57 PM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Best Practice for Lucene Search
>
> That answer is fine, but there are others. We store denormalized
That answer is fine, but there are others. We store denormalized data
in lucene, as you are doing, for display on web pages because we can
get it out of lucene much faster then we can get it out of the various
tables in the database. The database is not as fast as it might be,
quite possibly slow
Hello
I would store normalised data in MySQL and index only searchable content in
Lucene.
Regards
Nilesh
From: ilwes
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Friday, 30 January, 2009 15:08:10
Subject: Best Practice for Lucene Search
Hello,
I googled, sea
