I'd also be interested in hearing about performance differences between the two. Out of idle curiosity I run a few very basic trials. I expected there to be no noticeable difference, but was surprised to find the .NET application ran 3x faster than the Java equivalent.
-- Neal -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wayne Douglas Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 3:46 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Lucene Java Vs .Net Does anyone have any benchmark data on the performance of these two - purely out of interest :) On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Andreas Mummenhoff <[email protected]> wrote: > yes, > Lucene.Net is a class-per-class, API-per-API and algorithmatic port of the > Java Version. The release numbers are the same, so Java Lucene 2.3.1 ~= > Lucene.Net 2.3.1 > And the consequence of this is index compatibility, so you can search and > fill a Lucene.Net index with Java Lucene and the other way round. > > Andreas > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: MBVV.Satish [mailto:[email protected]] > Gesendet: Montag, 4. Mai 2009 22:47 > An: [email protected] > Betreff: Lucene Java Vs .Net > > > > Hi, > We are currently using Java based Lucene in one of our products. We have a > product in Microsoft .Net where we intend to use Lucene.Net. > My question is.... > 1.) Is Lucene.Net has all the features of Java version? or is there any > specific limitation to .Net version? > 2.) Is Lucene.Net is class-per-class, API-per-API and algorithmatic port > of Java Version? if so are the releases comparable by release numbers i.e., > .Net 2.3 with Java 2.3? > 3.) Is it possible to use the same Lucene indexes in Java Version as well > as .Net Version? > > Please answer my above questions so that it will be helpful in deciding on > the use of Lucene .Net. > > Thanks > Satish > > > Now surf faster and smarter ! Check out the new Firefox 3 - Yahoo! > Edition http://downloads.yahoo.com/in/firefox/?fr=om_email_firefox > > -- Cheers, w://
