java-user@lucene.apache.org
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Lucene Seaches VS. Relational database Queries

Subject: Re: Lucene Seaches VS. Relational database Queries
From: Jeryl Cook
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 18:36:29 -0700 PDT
Im the co-worker who suggested to Ananth( I've think we have been debating
this for 3 days now,from the post it seems he is winning :)... )

Anway, as Ananth stated I suggested this because I am wondering if  lucene
could solve a bottle neck query that is taking a deathly long time to
complete(read-only)....and the orginal design actually generated a threaded
60+ queries on the database to return results per userThread who hit our
website for this view..., I know that this will kill our server when
user-load increases...i know that lucene is built for speed and can handle a
very large number of peopel searching(we are using singleton Searcher), and
the (threaded)results will be the "hits" returned from lucene.. , also this
query will NOT be executed by any user in a text field , but rather in our
application code only when user selects differnt parts of the site...if all
values in this 1:n relationship we are trying to query in lucene then the
"application-provided" query will return accurate results.  

we are using Quartz, and not creating threads in servlets...

FINAL SOLUTION MAYBE?:
if our client EVER gives us a requirement that says we must have accurate
text-searching even if somthing on our index for  1:  "Jason" and "Jason
Black" relationship, then we should just simply say we cannot implement this
because  lucene search will yield inaccurate results correct???????

comments?
--
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Lucene-Seaches-VS.-Relational-database-Queries-t1434583.html#a3925693
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users forum at Nabble.com.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>