Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
Howie Wang wrote:
I definitely don't expect people to write it just because it happens
to be useful to me :-) Call me crazy, but I'm thinking of
implementing this when I get some free time (whenever that will be).
It seems that I would just need to implement
Howie Wang wrote:
Sorry about the previous crappily formatted message. In brief, my
point wasthat relational DB might perform better for small niche
users, and plusyou get the flexibility of SQL. No more writing custom
code to tweak webdb.Howie
Generally speaking, I agree that it would be a
I definitely don't expect people to write it just because it happens to be
useful to me :-) Call me crazy, but I'm thinking of implementing this when I
get some free time (whenever that will be). It seems that I would just need to
implement IWebDBWriter and IWebDBReader, and then add a
Actually nutch people are kind of autocrate., don't expect more from them
They do what they have decided I am waiting really stable product with
incremental indexing, which detect and add/remove pages as soon as they
added/removed. But they don't want to this , i don't know why ? what is
Arun Kaundal wrote:
Actually nutch people are kind of autocrate., don't expect more from them
They do what they have decided
Have you submitted patches that have been ignored or rejected?
Each Nutch contributor indeed does what he or she decides. Nutch is not
a service organization that
Howie Wang wrote:
I definitely don't expect people to write it just because it happens
to be useful to me :-) Call me crazy, but I'm thinking of
implementing this when I get some free time (whenever that will be).
It seems that I would just need to implement IWebDBWriter and
IWebDBReader, and
Thanks for the input, Andrzej. Yes, I'm still working off of 0.7. I might
still try it since I'm not planning on upgrading for a while, but it sounds
like it's not going to port to the current versions. Howie
_
Your friends are
Have anybody thought of replacing CrawlDb with any kind of Rational
DB,mysql,for example?
Crawldb is so difficult to manipulate.
I often have the requirements to edit several entries in crawdb;
But that would cost too much waiting for the mapReduce.
Hi, wangxu.
You wrote 13 апреля 2007 г., 1:03:31:
Have anybody thought of replacing CrawlDb with any kind of Rational
DB,mysql,for example?
Crawldb is so difficult to manipulate.
I often have the requirements to edit several entries in crawdb;
But that would cost too much waiting for the
wangxu wrote:
Have anybody thought of replacing CrawlDb with any kind of Rational
DB,mysql,for example?
Crawldb is so difficult to manipulate.
I often have the requirements to edit several entries in crawdb;
But that would cost too much waiting for the mapReduce.
Please make the following
wangxu wrote:
Have anybody thought of replacing CrawlDb with any kind of Rational
DB,mysql,for example?
Crawldb is so difficult to manipulate.
I often have the requirements to edit several entries in crawdb;
But that would cost too much waiting for the mapReduce.
Once when I was young
Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
wangxu wrote:
Have anybody thought of replacing CrawlDb with any kind of Rational
DB,mysql,for example?
Crawldb is so difficult to manipulate.
I often have the requirements to edit several entries in crawdb;
But that would cost too much waiting for the mapReduce.
Please make the following test using your favorite relational DB:*
create a table with 300 mln rows and 10 columns of mixed type*
select 1 mln rows, sorted by some value* update 1 mln rows to
different valuesIf you find that these operations take less time
than with
Sorry about the previous crappily formatted message. In brief, my point wasthat
relational DB might perform better for small niche users, and plusyou get the
flexibility of SQL. No more writing custom code to tweak webdb.Howie
_
14 matches
Mail list logo
