I/we(@Lucidworks and Solr, etc) take that _never_ as a challenge :) I’m pragmatic, so if the scale and technology fit the need, awesome +1! However great in-process search is for certain scenarios, it just doesn’t fit when you’re dealing with mega amounts of scale. Billions of documents, or super high QPS… gotta distribute (and by definition, remote it) to scale. And I think the “faster” is worth always testing out, considering caching (at various layers), distributed querying in parallel, and “binary” response formats when it comes to working with the likes of Solr.
Hey, I’m a big fan of Lucene, including supporting the Lucene.net <http://lucene.net/> efforts. Personally, I’m using Solr for everything, but to each their own, within what is pragmatically possible. And sometimes you just have to build an app natively, so I totally get that. It’s why in the Java world we don’t _have_ to remote Solr even (using EmbeddedSolrServer). — Erik Hatcher, Senior Solutions Architect http://www.lucidworks.com <http://www.lucidworks.com/> > On Jan 26, 2016, at 9:00 AM, Bart Czernicki <[email protected]> > wrote: > > There definitely is a need for local in-process search technology that is not > REST based. .NET developers have plenty of options there: Solr, > ElasticSearch, Azure Search (on MSFT cloud). The network latency, https > protocol and serialization/deserialization together are never going to be > faster than in-process search. > > Lucene 4.x has some great improvements in search and faceting that would be > great to have. I see this request come up a lot. > > <http://azure.microsoft.com/> > Bart Czernicki > Cloud Solution Architect | Azure SaaS ISV Solutions > 609.519.2060 | [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> | Why > Azure? <http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/overview/case-studies/> > > > From: Michael D Gorsich [mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>] > Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 8:50 AM > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Next sync release Lucene.net <http://lucene.net/> > > Could it be it works so well there just isn't much broad-based need for > change? Don't the newer changes to Lucene tend to cover more specialized > needs, with correspondingly fewer developers willing to work on it, or > needing the functions? > > I know for our org's needs Lucene 3.0.3 seems perfect as-is. > > Michael Gorsich > Senior Developer, DTE Energy - ITS > 734.586.1531 (Fermi 2) > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > "Michael O'Shea" ---2016.01.26 08:28:28---I managed to integrate Lucene.Net > <http://lucene.net/> into a content post-processing system on an Azure worker > process. > > From: "Michael O'Shea" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > To: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: 2016.01.26 08:28 > Subject: Re: Next sync release Lucene.net <http://lucene.net/> > > > > I managed to integrate Lucene.Net <http://lucene.net/> into a content > post-processing system on > an Azure worker process. > > I would be sad to see Lucene.Net <http://lucene.net/> go but it is true that > there seems to be > very little uptake for the project. Weird. > > Michael > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Erik Hatcher <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > > Or via HTTP? Solr! :) > > > > > On Jan 26, 2016, at 06:08, Allan, Brad (Bracknell) <[email protected] > > > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > wrote: > > > > > > This question sparked a thought.... > > > I wonder if it's time to think about an alternate way to make Lucene > > available to the .NET community - some sort of JNI wrapper? > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Nimesh Dhruve [mailto:[email protected] > > > <mailto:[email protected]>] > > > Sent: 25 January 2016 18:17 > > > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > Subject: Next sync release Lucene.net <http://lucene.net/> > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am wondering if there is any active development for Lucene.net > > > <http://lucene.net/> going > > on to keep it sync with Java Lucene and if so when is the next release for > > Lucene.net <http://lucene.net/> planned? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Nimesh > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > CheckFree Solutions Limited (trading as Fiserv) > > > Registered Office: Eversheds House, 70 Great Bridgewater Street, > > Manchester, M15 ES > > > Registered in England: No. 2694333 > > >
