----- 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 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 someone's implementation
> is
> wrong because Verity wasn't performing well for them. I simply
> pointing
> out that the person isn't alone in their findings, which isn't
> vague at
> all.
>
> > In fact, I have never seen an Apache project Lucene solution on
> a
> > single
> > server that outperformed that of the Verity solution.��Truth be
> known> I've never had the chance to compare them in that way.��But
> that's my
> > point -- what a silly response.
> >
> I can't really help that you don't do your homework and learn
> about all
> of the available tools to determine their strengths and
> weaknesses. I'm
> sure your clients would appreciate knowing that. But silly me for
> suggesting that their may be another way to solve a problem then
> what
> is directly available in ColdFusion.
>
> > You've always been a master sophist, Matt.��Verity is a solution
> that> has worked hand in hand with CF since the beginning of
> time.��It's> hardly non-sensical to suggest that it's more likely
> the Verity
> > implementation is not optimal than Verity itself is broken.
> >
> 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.
>
> Matt Liotta
> President & CEO
> Montara Software, Inc.
> http://www.MontaraSoftware.com
> (888) 408-0900 x901
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
