phi.de
_
From: Jorge Handl [mailto:jha...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 2:02 AM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: A Comparison of Open Source Search Engines
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Earwin Burrfoot wrote:
Anybody knows other interesting open-source s
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Earwin Burrfoot wrote:
> Anybody knows other interesting open-source search engines?
>
http://hounder.org
Interesting, I never realized there was lucene-java-...@apache.org .
My thoughts are on
http://www.jroller.com/otis/entry/open_source_search_engine_benchmark (and in
several comments in the blog itself).
Otis
- Original Message
> From: Sean Owen
> To: lucene-java-...@apache.org
>
mg4j is a nice project. It is missing the incremental aspects as well.The
"older" paper this experiment mentioned contains lucene-mg4j comparisons.
-John
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Earwin Burrfoot wrote:
> I'd say out of these libraries only Lucene and Sphinx are worth mentioning.
>
> Ther
> Anybody knows other interesting open-source search engines?
Minion (https://minion.dev.java.net/)
- Original Message
> From: Earwin Burrfoot
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, 6 July, 2009 23:01:52
> Subject: Re: A Comparison of Open Source Search E
I'd say out of these libraries only Lucene and Sphinx are worth mentioning.
There's also MG4J, which wasn't covered and has a nice algorithmic background.
Anybody knows other interesting open-source search engines?
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 00:39, John Wang wrote:
> Vik did a very nice job.
> One th
Vik did a very nice job.One thing the experiment did not mention is that
Lucene handles incremental updates, whereas many of the other "competitors"
do not. So the indexing performance comparison is not really fair.
-John
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
>
> http://zooie.wordpre
