Hi,
Could you please start a new thread?
Thanks,
Otis
- Original Message
> From: sunnyfr
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 10:20:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Solr vs Sphinx
>
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I work now for serveral month on
- Mark
>>
>>-
>>Eric Pugh | Principal | OpenSource Connections, LLC | 434.466.1467 |
http://www.opensourceconnections.com
>>Free/Busy: http://tinyurl.com/eric-cal
>
> Fergus
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Solr-vs-Sphinx-tp23524676p23852364.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>Something that would be interesting is to share solr configs for
>various types of indexing tasks. From a solr configuration aimed at
>indexing web pages to one doing large amounts of text to one that
>indexes specific structured data. I could see those being posted on
>the wiki and help
I agree regarding posting different types of files - because right now
if you're just starting out with Solr, taking the sample files from
the distro and going from there is the /only path/ =\
Thanks for your time!
Matthew Runo
Software Engineer, Zappos.com
mr...@zappos.com - 702-943-7833
O
Something that would be interesting is to share solr configs for
various types of indexing tasks. From a solr configuration aimed at
indexing web pages to one doing large amounts of text to one that
indexes specific structured data. I could see those being posted on
the wiki and helping f
In the spirit of good defaults:
I think we should change the Solr highlighter to highlight phrase
queries by default, as well as prefix,range,wildcard constantscore
queries. Its awkward to have to tell people you have to turn those on.
I'd certainly prefer to have to turn them off if I have so
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> Michael McCandless wrote:
>>
>> So why haven't we enabled this by default, already?
>
> Why isn't Lucene done already :)
I hear you :)
Mike
Michael McCandless wrote:
So why haven't we enabled this by default, already?
Why isn't Lucene done already :)
- Mark
On 14-May-09, at 9:46 AM, gdeconto wrote:
Solr is very fast even with 1.3 and the developers have done an
incredible
job.
However, maybe the next Solr improvement should be the creation of a
configuration manager and/or automated tuning tool. I know that
optimizing
Solr performance can
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> Richard Feynman:
>
>"...if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you
>think might make it invalid - not only what you think is right about it:
>other causes that could possibly explain your results; and t
of a
configuration manager and/or automated tuning tool. I know that optimizing
Solr performance can be time consuming and sometimes frustrating.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Solr-vs-Sphinx-tp23524676p23544492.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Andrey Klochkov
wrote:
> Can you please point me to some information concerning allowDocsOutOfOrder?
> What's this at all?
There is this cryptic static setter (in Lucene):
BooleanQuery.setAllowDocsOutOfOrder(boolean)
It defaults to false, which means BooleanS
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 06:47:01AM -0400, Michael McCandless wrote:
> While I agree, one should properly match & tune all apps they are
> testing (for a fair comparison), we in turn must set out-of-the-box
> defaults (in Lucene and Solr) that get you as close to the "best
> practices" as possible.
Totally agree on optimizing out of the box experience, it's just never
a one size fits all thing. And we have to be very careful about micro-
benchmarks driving these settings. Currently, many of us use
Wikipedia, but that's just one doc set and I'd venture to say most
Solr users do not ha
>
>
> My most recent example of this is BooleanQuery's performance. It
> turns out, if you setAllowDocsOutOfOrder(true), it yields a sizable
> performance gain (27% on my most recent test) for OR queries.
>
Mike,
Can you please point me to some information concerning allowDocsOutOfOrder?
What's
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> I've contacted
> others in the past who have done "comparisons" and after one round of
> emailing it was almost always clear that they didn't know what best
> practices are for any given product and thus were doing things
> sub-optimally.
Our company has a large search deployment serving > 50 M search hits / per
day.
We've been leveraging Lucene for several years and have recently deployed
Solr for the distributed search feature. We were hitting scaling limits
with lucene due to our index size.
I did an evaluation of Sphinx and f
On May 13, 2009, at 11:55 AM, wojtekpia wrote:
I came across this article praising Sphinx:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/08/dziuba_sphinx/. The article
specifically mentions Solr as an 'aging' technology,
Solr is the same age as Sphinx (2006), so if Solr is aging, then so is
Sphinx.
It's probably the case that every search engine out there is faster
than Solr at one thing or another, and that Solr is faster or better
at some other things.
I prefer to spend my time improving Solr rather than engage in
benchmarking wars... and Solr 1.4 will have a ton of speed
improvements over
ce is similar between the two.
Thanks,
Wojtek
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Solr-vs-Sphinx-tp23524676p23524676.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
20 matches
Mail list logo
