Agreed, an inverted index cannot be efficiently maintained in a
B-tree(hence RDBMS). But I think we can(or should) have the option of
a B-tree based storage for unindexed fields, whereas for indexed fields
we can use the existing lucene's architecture.
prasen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dmitry Goldenberg wrote:
For an enterprise-level application, Lucene appears too file-system and
too byte-sequence-centric a technology. Just my opinion. The
Directory API is just too low-level.
There are good reasons why Lucene is not built on top of a RDBMS. An
inverted index is not efficiently maintained in a B-Tree, and B-Trees
are the foundation of RDBMSes.
http://www.haifa.ibm.com/Workshops/ir2005/papers/DougCutting-Haifa05.pdf
I'd be OK with an RDBMS-based Directory implementation I could take
and use. But generally, I think the Lucene authors might like to
take a step back and consider splitting off the repository and making
it more extensible and high-level. Perhaps something like JSR-170
(Java repository API) may be a good route to go....
If you have concrete ideas for an improvements to Lucene's Directory
interface, please propose them to the java-dev mailing list, ideally
as a patch.
Cheers,
Doug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
