Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
The most obvious answer is that the full-text indexing features of
RDBMS's are not as good (as fast) as Lucene. MySQL, PostgreSQL,
Oracle, MS SQL Server etc. all have full-text indexing/searching
features, but I always hear people complaining about the speed. A
person
David Sitsky wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 09:31, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
You are right.
Since there are C++ and now C ports of Lucene, it would be interesting
to integrate them directly with DBs, so that the RDBMS full-text search
under the hood is actually powered by one of the Lucene ports.
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 09:31, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
You are right.
Since there are C++ and now C ports of Lucene, it would be interesting
to integrate them directly with DBs, so that the RDBMS full-text search
under the hood is actually powered by one of the Lucene ports.
Or to see Lucene +
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 04:45:50PM -0500, Mike Rose wrote:
I can comment on this since I'm in the middle of excising Oracle text
searching and replacing it with Lucene in one of my projects.
Intereseting, particularly as it's from somebody who's already
tried an existing in-db fulltext
Hi,
I was rambling to some friends about an idea to build a
cache-aware JDBC driver wrapper, to make it easier to keep a lucene
index of a database up to date.
They asked me a question that I have to take seriously, which is
that most RDBMSes provide some built-in fulltext searching -
The most obvious answer is that the full-text indexing features of
RDBMS's are not as good (as fast) as Lucene. MySQL, PostgreSQL,
Oracle, MS SQL Server etc. all have full-text indexing/searching
features, but I always hear people complaining about the speed. A
person from a well-known online
I can comment on this since I'm in the middle of excising Oracle text
searching and replacing it with Lucene in one of my projects.
Oracle does provide mechanisms for creating fuzzy indexes of text and
doing word stemming as well, has a scoring mechanism, etc... However,
this requires additional
Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
The most obvious answer is that the full-text indexing features of
RDBMS's are not as good (as fast) as Lucene. MySQL, PostgreSQL,
Oracle, MS SQL Server etc. all have full-text indexing/searching
features,
but I always hear people complaining about the speed.
Yeah, but
But this brings up - has anyone run Lucene off a database trigger or
are triggers known to be slow and bad for this use?
I suspect the tricky bit would be knowing when to balancing the calls to
Reader/Writer closes, opens and optimizes.
Record updates are the usual fun and games involving a
markharw00d wrote:
But this brings up - has anyone run Lucene off a database trigger or
are triggers known to be slow and bad for this use?
I suspect the tricky bit would be knowing when to balancing the calls to
Reader/Writer closes, opens and optimizes.
Record updates are the usual fun and
10 matches
Mail list logo
