Yes, "transactional", I tried it: do we really need "transactional"? Even if "commit" takes 20 minutes? It's their "selling point" nothing more. HBase is not transactional, and it has specific use case; each tool has specific use case... in some cases Compass is the best!
Also, note that Compass (Hibernate) ((RDBMS)) use specific "business domain model" terms with relationships; huge overhead to convert "relational" into "object-oriented" (why for? Any advantages?)... Lucene does it behind-the-scenes: you don't have to worry that field "USA" (3 characters) is repeated in few millions documents, and field "Canada" (6 characters) in another few; no any "relational", it's done automatically without any Compass/Hibernate/Table(s) Don't think "relational". I wrote this 2 years ago: http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=50711#272351 Fuad Efendi +1 416-993-2060 http://www.tokenizer.ca/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Uri Boness [mailto:ubon...@gmail.com] > Sent: January-21-10 11:35 AM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: Solr vs. Compass > > In addition, the biggest appealing feature in Compass is that it's > transactional and therefore integrates well with your infrastructure > (Spring/EJB, Hibernate, JPA, etc...). This obviously is nice for some > systems (not very large scale ones) and the programming model is clean. > On the other hand, Solr scales much better and provides a load of > functionality that otherwise you'll have to custom build on top of > Compass/Lucene. > > Lukáš Vlček wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I think that these products do not compete directly that much, each > fit > > different business case. Can you tell us more about our specific > situation? > > What do you need to search and where your data is? (DB, Filesystem, > Web > > ...?) > > > > Solr provides some specific extensions which are not supported > directly by > > Lucene (faceted search, DisMax... etc) so if you need these then your > bet on > > Compass might not be perfect. On the other hand if you need to index > > persistent Java objects then Compass fits perfectly into this scenario > (and > > if you are using Spring and JPA then setting up search can be matter > of > > several modifications to configuration and annotations). > > > > Compass is more Hibernate search competitor (but Compass is not > limited to > > Hibernate only and is not even limited to DB content as well). > > > > Regards, > > Lukas > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Ken Lane (kenlane) > <kenl...@cisco.com>wrote: > > > > > >> We are knee-deep in a Solr project to provide a web services layer > >> between our Oracle DB's and a web front end to be named later to > >> supplement our numerous Business Intelligence dashboards. Someone > from a > >> peer group questioned why we selected Solr rather than Compass to > start > >> development. The real reason is that we had not heard of Compass > until > >> that comment. Now I need to come up with a better answer. > >> > >> > >> > >> Does anyone out there have experience in both approaches who might be > >> able to give a quick compare and contrast? > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks in advance, > >> > >> Ken > >> > >> > >> > > > >
