Hello, I'm guessing both Lucene and a DB (relational or not) may be about the same here. Query like name="John" and age=30 and city="London" could be done with either, but if you think you'll need to expand those queries to include full-text search, then I'd go with Lucene (or Solr).
Otis ---- Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/ ----- Original Message ---- > From: "w...@vancameron.net" <w...@vancameron.net> > To: general@lucene.apache.org > Sent: Sat, May 28, 2011 2:28:00 AM > Subject: Query performance, bitset, btree > > Hello, I'm new to Lucene. I have a question about performance. I have a > structured dataset split up into fields, for example name, age, city, state. > I want to query this dataset for exact matches to fields, e.g. name="John" > and age=30 and city="London". For such a dataset, how will performance of > Lucene compare with a database table with an appropriate index (e.g. index > on name, age, city)? The dataset is pretty static so index update > performance is not an issue for me. > > From what I understand, Lucene uses bitset indexes while a typical database > index will use a b-tree (or hash). I'll admit I don't fully understand what > a bitset index is. What types of datasets and queries take best advantage of > bitset indexes vs a btree index? > > -- > View this message in context: >http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Query-performance-bitset-btree-tp2995495p2995495.html > > Sent from the Lucene - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
