Thanks everyone!! This has been really helpful discussion and in short based on this we have taken the decision to stick to SOLR.
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Jack Krupansky <j...@basetechnology.com> wrote: > And neither project supports the Lucene faceting module, correct? > > And the ES web site says: "WARNING: Facets are deprecated and will be > removed in a future release. You are encouraged to migrate to aggregations > instead." > > That makes it more of an apples/oranges comparison. > > -- Jack Krupansky > > -----Original Message----- From: Toke Eskildsen > Sent: Monday, August 4, 2014 3:33 AM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Solr vs ElasticSearch > > On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 08:31 +0200, Harald Kirsch wrote: > >> As for performance, I would expect that it is very hard to find one of >> the two technologies to be generally ahead. Except for plain blunders >> that may be lurking in the code, I would think the inner loops, the >> stuff that really burns CPU cycles, all happens in Lucene, which is the >> same for both. >> > > Faceting/Aggregation is implemented independently and with different > designs for Solr and Elasticsearch. I would be surprised if memory > overhead and performance were about the same for this functionality. > > - Toke Eskildsen, State and University Library, Denmark > > -- Regards, Salman Akram
