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.




Reply via email to