I've also worked with a variety of other search products (including
Lucene) -- I'm not wedded to Verity. I just object to it being thrown
on the scrap heap when in many instances it is perfectly good, very
easy
to setup and comes bundled with CF.
No one implied throwing it on the scrap
Verity Collections Execution Time
Barney,
Barney Boisvert wrote:
I didn't say anything about read speed.I agree, verity is quite fast for
that.The updates, however, are slow like a dog.I don't think anyone
can
argue that one.If you've got a collection using verity that doesn't
change
a whole lot
Geoff,
How do you efficiently update a collection?
Andy
That said, we typically take great care to ensure that the collections
are regularly optimised and that they are efficiently updated.
-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast
Subject: Re: Update Verity Collections Execution Time
I've also worked with a variety of other search products (including
Lucene) -- I'm not wedded to Verity.I just object to it being thrown
on the scrap heap when in many instances it is perfectly good, very
easy
to setup and comes bundled with CF
No, CF uses a castrated version of the K2 engine.God knows what they
castrated, other than the # docs limit.
The K2 server and VDK libraries we use in ColdFusion are the fully capable
release 2.6.1 binaries.
Our license limits the (legal) document count.
--
Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server
Thanks for the info.It makes me feel better (really, it does).
- Original Message -
From: Tom Jordahl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2003 11:09 am
Subject: RE: Update Verity Collections Execution Time
No, CF uses a castrated version of the K2 engine.God knows
what
No problem. :-)
--
Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Development
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 1:08 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: RE: Update Verity Collections Execution Time
Thanks for the info.It makes me feel better
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with Matt. The Verity that comes with CF sucks. Hard.
So.
I am in the process of planning what Blackstone will have in terms of search technology.I am interested in hearing what people have to say about Verity in ColdFusion.
If you want to make sure I see
Performance issues?? In a context that vague any solution on earth
could be deemed to have performance issues. But for a free text
search over a 10,000 record collection for the average CF app you'd be
hard pushed to make Verity break sweat.
Your the one who made the assumption that
: Monday, December 01, 2003 8:13 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Update Verity Collections Execution Time
Folks,
Generally statements like this are non-sensical.There are
hundreds of
Verity based applications out there performing very nicely thankyou.
You can't just write-off an application
On Tuesday 02 Dec 2003 02:08 am, Barney Boisvert wrote:
took upwards of 45 seconds on a reasonably beefy machine (dual P-III 666).
I wouldn't call that 'reasonably beefy' these days.
--
Tom Chiverton
Advanced ColdFusion Programmer
Tel: +44(0)1749 834997
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BlueFinger
Matt,
Now your being just plain rude.
Matt Liotta wrote:
Performance issues??In a context that vague any solution on earth
could be deemed to have performance issues.But for a free text
search over a 10,000 record collection for the average CF app you'd be
hard pushed to make Verity break
I agree with Matt.The Verity that comes with CF sucks.Hard.
- Original Message -
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2003 7:45 am
Subject: Re: Update Verity Collections Execution Time
Performance issues?? In a context that vague any solution on earth
could
Barney,
Barney Boisvert wrote:
I didn't say anything about read speed.I agree, verity is quite fast for
that.The updates, however, are slow like a dog.I don't think anyone can
argue that one.If you've got a collection using verity that doesn't change
a whole lot, then verity is great (and
Does it sound correct that adding a single record to a verity
collection thru action = ''t necessarily sound correct or incorrect. It's certainly
possible.
Without getting into whether Verity sucks or not, there are things that
Verity is good at, and things that it's not so good at. Verity
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with Matt.The Verity that comes with CF sucks.Hard.
Oh well.CF uses the standard Verity K2 engine.So I guess Verity
ought to just throw in the towel -- clearly all the folks out there
using their product successfully for the last 5 years have been duped.
--
Verity's history with CF has no bering on how well it performs
compared to other solutions that can be used with CF. Using that
logic all CF applications would be built using Pointbase since it
ships with CF as opposed to Oracle or some other enterprise database.
I don't think that the
I suggested it was more than likely -- but dealing with the relevant
facts never suits your style of arguement.
Where are these relevant facts I am missing? You certainly haven't
presented a single fact.
Why bother to look to Lucene if Verity is more than adequate for the
task, ships with
I suggested it was more than likely -- but dealing with the
relevant facts never suits your style of arguement.
Where are these relevant facts I am missing? You certainly haven't
presented a single fact.
Can't we all just get along?
Yuk, yuk, yuk.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
Subject: Re: Update Verity Collections Execution Time
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with Matt.The Verity that comes with CF sucks.Hard.
Oh well.CF uses the standard Verity K2 engine.So I guess
Verity
ought to just throw in the towel -- clearly all the folks out
there
using
No, CF uses a castrated version of the K2 engine. God knows what
they castrated, other than the # docs limit.
What makes you think that anything other than the maximum number of
documents (a licensing limitation) has been changed? I haven't found any
reason to believe this, although I can only
I know plenty, myself. That's not to say it's perfect (or even good),
but it
is adequate for many, at least. It also has the advantage of reliably
being
there for most CF installations, which can potentially reduce the
installation dependencies of CF applications.
And you can't beat the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, CF uses a castrated version of the K2 engine.God knows what they
castrated, other than the # docs limit.
As far as I'm aware CF uses the standard K2 OEM engine.The Verity/CF
gateway reduces some of the functionality available but at the same time
it greatly
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: December 2, 2003 5:06 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Update Verity Collections Execution Time
No, CF uses a castrated version of the K2 engine. God knows what
they castrated, other than the # docs limit.
What makes you
Well, I'm sure the price of CF includes the costs of licensing the Verity
engine.
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: December 2, 2003 8:08 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Update Verity Collections Execution Time
I know plenty, myself. That's not to say
Kwang Suh wrote:
BTW, how many companies do you know that use the CF Verity engine
successfully?
I know plenty, myself. That's not to say it's perfect (or even good), but it
is adequate for many, at least. It also has the advantage of reliably being
there for most CF installations, which can
This would imply that the code was looping over the recordset and
updating the Verity collection one record at a time.Inevitably this
leads to massive fragmentation of the Verity index and consequentially
VERY slow performance until you optimise the collection.
Well, that wasn't really an
Yeah.Verity is slow.We had a collection (designed by a developer before
my time, I might add) with about 10,000 items in it.Inserting a new row
took upwards of 45 seconds on a reasonably beefy machine (dual P-III 666).
As you might imagine, that quickly got scrapped in favor of the very speedy
Yikes.Guess I'll need to go back to the SQL search I had designed.Wasn't
as pretty, but a whole lot faster.
Thanks.
-Original Message-
From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 8:09 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Update Verity Collections Execution Time
as pretty, but a whole lot faster.
Thanks.
-Original Message-
From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 8:09 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Update Verity Collections Execution Time
Yeah.Verity is slow.We had a collection (designed by a developer
Generally statements like this are non-sensical. There are hundreds of
Verity based applications out there performing very nicely thankyou.
You can't just write-off an application like Verity on account of
having
a slow solution -- more than likely it is your solution implementation
that
Matt Liotta wrote:
If any general statement is non-sensical it would be calling an
implementation buggered without knowledge of the implementation itself.
Matt, now your just teasing me :)
-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast
Matt Liotta wrote:
Generally statements like this are non-sensical.There are hundreds of
Verity based applications out there performing very nicely thankyou.
You can't just write-off an application like Verity on account of
having
a slow solution -- more than likely it is your solution
33 matches
Mail list logo
