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]

Reply via email to