That resource is rather superficial. I wouldn't make big decision based on it.
As to performance, ElasticSearch stores the full submitted content as _source field. That allows it some extra tricks (like fake-nested documents), but also has a storage price. You can disable the _source field, but then some functionality goes away. Also, ES relies a lot on scripting to replace things that Solr has as built-in or as compiled classes. Obviously, scripting can be more flexible, but it is inherently slower. Though I think ES was trying to make this faster in recent releases. But yes, in general, the bulk of work happens in Lucene. Regards, Alex. Personal: http://www.outerthoughts.com/ and @arafalov Solr resources and newsletter: http://www.solr-start.com/ and @solrstart Solr popularizers community: https://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=6713853 On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Harald Kirsch <harald.kir...@raytion.com> wrote: > Except if I missed it, nobody yet pointed to > > http://solr-vs-elasticsearch.com/ > > which seems to be fairly up-to-date. > > As for performance, I would expect that it is very hard to find one of the > two technologies to be generally ahead. Except for plain blunders that may > be lurking in the code, I would think the inner loops, the stuff that really > burns CPU cycles, all happens in Lucene, which is the same for both. > > The differences are more likely to found in operations. > > Harald. > > > On 01.08.2014 08:34, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: >> >> If performance is the main reason, you can stick with Solr. Both Solr and >> ES have many knobs to turn for performance, it is impossible to give a >> direct and correct answer to the question which is faster. >> >> Otis >> -- >> Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics >> Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/ >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Salman Akram < >> salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote: >> >>> I did see that earlier. My main concern is search >>> performance/scalability/throughput which unfortunately that article >>> didn't >>> address. Any benchmarks or comments about that? >>> >>> We are already using SOLR but there has been a push to check >>> elasticsearch. >>> All the benchmarks I have seen are at least few years old. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Otis Gospodnetic < >>> otis.gospodne...@gmail.com >>>> >>>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Not super fresh, but more recent than the 2 links you sent: >>>> >>> >>> http://blog.sematext.com/2012/08/23/solr-vs-elasticsearch-part-1-overview/ >>>> >>>> >>>> Otis >>>> -- >>>> Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics >>>> Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/ >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Salman Akram < >>>> salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> This is quite an old discussion. Wanted to check any new comparisons >>>> >>>> after >>>>> >>>>> SOLR 4 especially with regards to performance/scalability/throughput? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Peter <peat...@yahoo.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Have a look: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2271600/elasticsearch-sphinx-lucene-solr-xapian-which-fits-for-which-usage >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> http://karussell.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/elasticsearch-vs-solr-lucene/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Peter. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> View this message in context: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-vs-ElasticSearch-tp3009181p3200492.html >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Salman Akram >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> >>> Salman Akram >>> >> >
