The most obvious answer is that the full-text indexing features of RDBMS's are not as good (as fast) as Lucene. MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle, MS SQL Server etc. all have full-text indexing/searching features, but I always hear people complaining about the speed. A person from a well-known online bookseller told me recently that Lucene was about 10x faster that MySQL for full-text searching, and I am currently helping someone get away from MySQL and into Lucene for performance reasons.
Otis --- "Steven J. Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I was rambling to some friends about an idea to build a > cache-aware JDBC driver wrapper, to make it easier to keep a lucene > index of a database up to date. > > They asked me a question that I have to take seriously, which is > that most RDBMSes provide some built-in fulltext searching - > postgres, > mysql, even oracle - why not use that instead of adding another layer > of caching? > > I have to take this question seriously, especially since it > reminds me a lot of what Doug has often said to folks contemplating > doing similar things (caching query results, etc) with Lucene. > > Has anybody done some serious investigation into this, and could > summarize the pros and cons? > > -- > Steven J. Owens > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "I'm going to make broad, sweeping generalizations and strong, > declarative statements, because otherwise I'll be here all night and > this document will be four times longer and much less fun to read. > Take it all with a grain of salt." - http://darksleep.com/notablog > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
