It depends (tm). How much data are we talking about here?I dislike having to have two data sources for a running app just because it's more complicated, so my first try would be to store all the data in the index and try it. A several Gigabyte index is not a problem at all (depending upon how you use it, that is).
But note that storing data doesn't impact searching speed as much as you'd think, indexing and storing are orthogonal, and you only access the stored data when you get the document, not when searching. But none of this matters if you have to go to the database anyway. If you can *completely* satisfy the search by storing the entire table in the index, I'd just try that first. Best Erick On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Aditya R <aditya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am new to lucene. In my sample application I have used lucene to index my > 17 field db table. I have stored only the primary key of the table in > lucene > index and indexed other 16 fields, without storing them. The primary keys > of > the searched keyword is then retrieved. The primary key string is then > queried in the database like this > 'String quer="from Doctors where id IN "+primaryKeys;' , where > 'primaryKeys' will be something like this (23,32,44,56). > Is this the right way to use lucene? Or do you suggest me to store all the > fields in the lucene index and retrieve them. > > Thanks, > Aditya > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Using-IN-to-retrieve-data-after-lucene-search.-tp24404198p24404198.html > Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
