just intuition - haven't tried it, so i'd love to be proved wrong.
Instrumenting Objects and magically passing them around seems like it
would be slower then a tuned approach used in SOLR-303.
It looks like they have a lucene example:
http://www.terracotta.org/confluence/display/integrations/Lucene
Also, i don't understand how terracotta could get lucene past the
Integer.MAX_VALUE limit because it does not change the API, it works
within it.
ryan
Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
Hey Ryan, why do you say a Lucene/Solr index served via Terracotta would be
substantially slower?
I often wanted to try Terracotta + Lucene, but... time.
Thanks,
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
----- Original Message ----
From: Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:52:45 AM
Subject: Re: Update schema.xml without restarting Solr?
Jeryl Cook wrote:
Top often requested feature:
1. Make the option on using the "RAMDirectory" to hook in Terracotta(
billion(s) of items in an index anyone?..it would be possible using
this.)
This is noted in: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-465
Out of cueriosity, any sense of performance with a terracotta index? It
seems like it would have to be *substantially* slower. Also, if it is a
RAM directly, does it persist?
If your looking to support billions of docs, perhaps consider:
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/DistributedSearch
ryan
