> > I don't have any confidence that solr would default to the "smaller" > option or fix how they manage different solr cores or thousands of > threads or any of the analyzer issues.
Certainly there's work to be done there. Many things to improve. Separate issue however. > And who would maintain this > separate hunspell backend? I don't think it is fair to Peter to have > to cope with 2 implementations of hunspell, 1 is certainly enough... > :). It's all apache license, at the end of the day if someone wants to > step up, let 'em. otherwise let's get out of their way. > Entirely valid point, but what I wouldn't want to see is a case where someone using an existing install had to buy significantly more servers to continue using it with the new version. I also think it's great to have improved performance :) I've had several customers that have been disappointed at the cost of servers necessary for the size of their data. Usually this cost is due to memory requirements, not cpu needs. I often have to explain that search is all about trading memory for speed, but have found myself wishing that it were easier to vary the degree of that trade-off. So that's the root of my comment...
