NoSQL-like repositories like Lucene/Solr are generally more flexibles and are tailored to work with full-text, however if you need to perform complex relational operations or need to manage trasactions then a DB is best.
On 5/29/11, Otis Gospodnetic <otis_gospodne...@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. >> > -- Sent from my mobile device
