Thanks for the reply. I guess my question is also related to mails sent by Cecil New earlier. She's trying to index simple, atomic (I mean not tokenizable) fields unlike text fields. In this scenario I am evaluating would I be better off using Lucene or creating a DB index of these simple fields (some are VARCHAR types others are of numeric type) for searching (Note Cecil that I do not question your approach)? As a practical example has anyone benchmark a SQL statement using a '=' or 'LIKE' operator using a major DB vendor versus a Lucene Query or WildcardQuery on atomic fields?
-----Original Message----- From: Ian Lea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 2:03 AM To: Lucene Users List Subject: Re: Lucene indexer vs. DB index If your database or LDAP server gives you all the indexing you need, with good enough performance, perhaps you don't need Lucene. But I'm not aware of any databases that give you full text indexing to match the power of Lucene. -- Ian. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emmanuel Bridonneau wrote: > > Can anyone tell me the advantages of Lucene indexer for indexing data > located in a database or LDAP server over creating another index in the > database or from an LDAP console? > There got to be some for indexing database records but I can't see them? > Any light out there? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
