On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Paul Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > The reason that I don't try and index the entire DB is because of the > arbitrary structure to JSON. Indexing a value that isn't a string > leads to a whole lot of questions with no good answers. By indexing a > view I let people pick exactly which parts of their db they want > indexed.
Woot! This is exactly the kind of FTI that I can see myself using for my various projects. Thanks Paul! The main advantage to full-db indexing is that it can be used without knowing what the schema is. So eg you could provide an FTI web-service for people's local databases, where they replicate the db to you and you provide search, without them installing Lucene. But I consider this an enhancement. > > If some can dream up a structured indexing that doesn't suck, I'd be > glad to take a look. But after all the playing I've done with it I > just don't really see the structured stuff as being useful. > > HTH, > Paul Davis > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yeah, but in case I just want to index the entire DB I don't want to >> have another index with a copy of all my data. >> >> Cheers >> Jan >> -- >> >> On 18 Jan 2009, at 19:29, Justin Cormack wrote: >> >>> You can just make a view with everything in if you want to index the >>> entire >>> DB. >>> >>> Indexing views is much more flexible. >>> >>> Justin >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> One thing I noticed (which is different from my original implementation) >>>> that you do not index databases but only views, is that correct? I'm not >>>> sure if it matters, but I do see the case for "meh just index the entire >>>> database". Is this a planned feature? >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Jan >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Paul Davis >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Paul Davis >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Darrin, >>>>>> >>>>>> action2 went away because _external is now in trunk. My couchdb-lucene >>>>>> branch is still there and I've put it on the schedule to bring into >>>>>> conformance with the very slightly altered trunk version (trunk >>>>>> includes more info in the line API). >>>>>> >>>>>> Moving forward you can pull a copy of the couchdb-lucene stuff and >>>>>> hack on it to get it working or wait for me to get to it this weekend. >>>>>> >>>>>> HTH, >>>>>> Paul Davis >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Darrin Wortlehock >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In late November I was working with davisp's couchdb-lucene, which >>>>>>> required >>>>>>> jchris' action2 branch to work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am now returning to the development I was doing, building a new >>>>>>> development environment from scratch and it appears that jchris' >>>>>>> action2 >>>>>>> branch has now gone away. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am specifically interested in lucene integration. Can anybody >>>>>>> provide >>>>>>> any >>>>>>> hints on how to move forward? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Darrin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> > -- Chris Anderson http://jchris.mfdz.com
