Lucene isn't even close to a DBMS. The batch commits make it less of of database than Berkeley DB.
Lucene is a search engine. wunder On Sep 8, 2011, at 8:54 AM, Jaeger, Jay - DOT wrote: > If you think about it, Lucene (upon which Solr is build) *is* a kind of DBMS > - just not an RDBMS. After all, in the end, a DBMS stores its stuff in > files, too. If you then turned around and mapped the stuff that Solr does > into database tables, you would lose all of the performance advantages that > the Lucene/Solr design brings to the table. There would be no point. > > I think this is just a matter of having been "brainwashed" into thinking that > a database is the only "safe" place to put stuff. > > JRJ > > -----Original Message----- > From: kiran.bodigam [mailto:kiran.bodi...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 8:27 AM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: can indexing information stored in db rather than filesystem? > > SOLR will keep the indexed information in directory called > index(${DATA_DIR}/index) after clicking the commit from admin console and > also we can override the existing index files.similarly can we keep (or) > store these index related information in permanent location like db table > rather than a file system? > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/can-indexing-information-stored-in-db-rather-than-filesystem-tp3319687p3319687.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
