Thank you for all your comments. From what i researched on my own, the new SQL Server 2005 fulltext functionality is highly improved. Microsoft tested it and said that it performs well on 2 billion records (although the size and type of info in each record is unpublished). After using lucene for a previous project, i found myself having to do a lot of extra work and taking a similar approach to Fernando's where i implemented a webservice that would encapsulate lucene.NET APIs. I had to worry about finding the right way to update the index without disturbing the user experience, build some sort of replication, and keep my index in sync with a PostreSQL db. Lucene requires building a lot of this functionality that is already in SQL Server. But my primary concern is performance, and in terms of comparing Lucene to PostgreSQL's TSearch2, it's not even close to a competition. Lucene's performance is insanely awesome in comparison.
-Greg On 2/15/06, Fernando Luiz Engelmann Junior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I was trying to say that if you wanna choose a database solution, try > oracle instead SQL Server. Not the fact that oracle is faster or better than > lucene. > > Fernando > > Pasha Bizhan wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I don´t know if you have already worked with oracle, but > if you want a database solution, try the oracle one. In my > oppinion the full-text function of this database is the best. > > > > Lucene can reindex and update data faster than Oracle. > > Pasha Bizhan > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Atenciosamente > ------------------------------ > *Fernando Luiz Engelmann Jr.* > *Desenvolvimento de Sistemas > SoftExpert Quality Software > +55 (47) 2101-9955 > http://www.softexpert.com > * > ------------------------------ > >
