Hello, Funny, I was just wondering how Lucene compares to Texis the other day. Yes, I guess Lucene doesn't have any caching. Perhaps this could easily be added by making use of one of many caching projects that seem to be popping up under Jakarta (jakarta.apache.org).
Winston, if appropriate, could you share some of the changes you made to Lucene to support the query rate that you mentioned? Thanks, Otis --- Winton Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > We're (Overture/Goto) evaluating Lucene ... email me specific > questions. > > In general I would say Lucene is very efficient. It is only about > 30% slower than Thunderstone Texis > (which is a native C code base). Main difference is that Lucene > doesn't handle Caching as well as > Texis does. > > Basically the Index is on Disk or in RAM (ie can take up 400-500 MB > > in our application). Texis for example > is able to buffer what it can of the Index in memory without > explicit setting of memory limits. > > Out of the box we couldn't use Phrase Matching for very high volume > > transactions (we're looking at 1000s queries/sec) > and had to customize it to your needs, but because its Open Source, > > guess what, you can write any kind > of optimizations you want. Actually that isn't fair -- just be > careful that you understand the performance > parameters involved in text retrieval and the various types of > querys that are possible. Do you need Text Retrieval > or Are you doing an unranked "Text Search" ? > > > Oh, and its free :) > > Reliable ? Well I've never had a problem someone couldnt answer, > and > it never crashes (ie its pretty bug-free > as far as I can tell). o:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
