hi there ..
well, the FTS is crucial for us (as it is crucial for any search engine) ..
for now, we can live a while with our current full text index/search
implementation, but we would be, for sure, happy to have some working,
stable and and fast FTS customized directly for the BigOWLIM :)
anyway, of course, we are interested also in the current FTS
implementation .. if nothing else, we would be pleased to help you with
the testing ..
best wishes,
Peter K.
> Hello Peter
>
> we have multiple ways to support FTS within OWLIM. One of them is based on
> proprietary FTI implementation and another one is based on Lucene. We are
> not making much noise about them, because they are still not properly
> documented, we are also working to further speed up both the indexing and
> the queries. Still, Ivan can help you to try the current implementation,
> if
> this feature is so important for you
>
> Regards
> Naso
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Atanas Kiryakov
> Executive Director of Ontotext AD, http://www.ontotext.com
> Sirma Group, http://www.sirma.bg
> Phone: (+359 2) 974 61 44; Fax: 975 3226
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Fortes fortuna adiuvat.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ing. Peter Kostelník PhD." <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 3:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [Owlim-discussion] BigOWLIM issues
>
>
>> hi there,
>>
>> to the lucene topic: now we are using the lucene sail, but we were
>> forced
>> to hack it to be able to put it above the bigowlim .. it is not
>> implemented too well, it has problems with handling the transactions
>> dealing with the big amounts of data (when building the imports, it
>> holds
>> everything in the memory, so it, logically, has to go down on the heap
>> space) .. we also found serious problems in handling the index for
>> multi-value properties, context data, but also in the implementation of
>> query evaluation .. so, if we wanted to avoid of building our own
>> external
>> full-text index, integration of lucene sail required many hacks and
>> workarounds directly in the lucene sail code ..
>>
>> and this are, in our oppinion, the most important issues, which should
>> be
>> taken into account .. for sure, with performance optimizations :)
>>
>> by the way, don't you plan to use the new release of lucene 3.0.0, which
>> has the really many usefull optimizations?
>>
>> cheers,
>> Peter K.
>>
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> Both issues are currently in progress. Lucene integration is currently
>>> only
>>> experimental and is not really flexible or stable to use in production
>>> (it
>>> is
>>> not even documented). Our goal is to provide enough flexibility so that
>>> e.g.
>>> custom analyzers and result rankings are easily pluggable by the engine
>>> user.
>>>
>>> It will be of great value to us if you could summarize the full-text
>>> search
>>> flexibility you will need.
>>>
>>> The "when" question is a lot harder to answer. I can't give you any
>>> concrete
>>> due dates currently, but this is something on the table now and we
>>> should
>>> be
>>> able to deliver results within the next couple of months. I hope I'm
>>> not
>>> too
>>> wrong about that... :)
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers and have a happy new year!
>>> Ivan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday 18 December 2009 13:01:51 Ing. Peter Kostelník PhD. wrote:
>>>> hi there,
>>>>
>>>> we're planning to use the BigOWLIM as the production backend, so I've
>>>> got
>>>> just the few questions regarding the further BigOWLIM developement ..
>>>>
>>>> 1. I've noticed, that in 3.2.6 snapshot, there is the direct
>>>> dependency
>>>> to
>>>> Lucene 2.9 core .. so, I assume, you're planning to integrate the
>>>> lucene
>>>> as the fulltext index/search engine .. pls, would there be the support
>>>> for
>>>> configuring the lucene? I mean the essential issues, such as adding
>>>> custom
>>>> analysers/tokenizers, fuzzy search support, custom query parsers, etc.
>>>> ?
>>>> .. when do you plan to integrate the lucene?
>>>>
>>>> 2. is there some possibility to force BigOWLIM to perform logging in
>>>> some
>>>> reasonable way? .. now everything is flushed into (I guess)
>>>> System.out/err
>>>> .. and, well, this is not so suitable for production backend ..
>>>>
>>>> thanks in advance,
>>>> best wishes and merry christmas,
>>>> Peter K.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OWLIM-discussion mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://ontotext.com/mailman/listinfo/owlim-discussion
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OWLIM-discussion mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://ontotext.com/mailman/listinfo/owlim-discussion
>>
>
_______________________________________________
OWLIM-discussion mailing list
[email protected]
http://ontotext.com/mailman/listinfo/owlim-discussion
