I got the impression that the author used ZL and expected to get the
same performance result akin to using Java. This is where my flawed
argument comes in. There is no reference to the fundamental
difference between the languages and the performance differences this
yields, I am not even talking about ZL, it's about the fundamental
aspects of the two languages.
On 10 Nov 2009, at 21:37, Matthew Ratzloff <[email protected]>
wrote:
I guess I don't see how comparing the two is "totally flawed". You
should compare solutions for the dimensions that matter to your use
case--in the case of large indices, performance will undoubtedly be
one of those dimensions. I had a similar experience with
Zend_Search_Lucene and concluded that Apache Solr was orders of
magnitude more suitable to enterprise solutions.
For a blog or small index, Zend_Search_Lucene is fine, however.
That's not to disparage it in any way. PHP is just not well-suited
for these kinds of things.
-Matt
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Daniel Latter
<[email protected]> wrote:
Yeah, it compares PHP to Java which
In itself is totally flawed, but I'm sure more smarter people will
articluate this better than me. So hold tight.
On 16 Oct 2009, at 05:18, ctx2002 <[email protected]> wrote:
i try use zend lucene as my site search engine, then i have found this
article,
http://dadabase.de/weblog/archives/2009/07/22/recommendation-dont-use-zend-php-lucene
.
can any one say something about that article?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/zend-lucene-tp25919568p25919568.html
Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
