Hi Jokin,
Thanks for the pointer - I was working from the Manning Lucene book,
expecting the differences not to be too large, and your pointer is of
inestimable value.
The main reason for approaching Lucene is to provide the matching for
the Chemical names. Chemical names end up being of immense complexity
and ambiguity. Persuading users to type exact strings is always
problematic. Lucene appears to have better flexibility in its matching
of terms than a relational database.
Karl
Jokin Cuadrado wrote:
may I'm missing something, but i think that lucene is not the best way
for searching in structured information. maybe a relational database
with a optimized structure would do the job better in this case.
On 10/9/07, Karl Geppert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Second part of the question is in terms of searching for details
regarding Chemicals in Lucene, at the moment I have planned to add the
name and the index-number so we can identify the rest of the material.
Should I add other fields of fixed-text regarding each material, such as
CAS numbers (where there can be 1-50 of them), physical properties and
so forth, or am I better/is it more efficient to stick to traditional
search methods for these?
Karl
_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by the
MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit
http://www.Hi-Speed.net.au
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working
around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.hi-speed.net.au
________________________________________________________________________
