Great testimonies! Thanks! Michael
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Erik Hatcher <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > >
