And not to sound redundant but if you ever need help, database programmers are 
a dime a dozen, good luck finding solr developers that are available freelance 
for a price you're willing to pay. If you can do the solr anyone else that does 
web dev can do the sql

> On Feb 21, 2017, at 8:17 PM, Dave <hastings.recurs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> B is a better option long term. Solr is meant for retrieving flat data, fast, 
> not hierarchical. That's what a database is for and trust me you would rather 
> have a real database on the end point.  Each tool has a purpose, solr can 
> never replace a relational database, and a relational database could not 
> replace solr. Start with the slow model (database) for control/display and 
> enhance with the fast model (solr) for retrieval/search 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 21, 2017, at 7:57 PM, Robert Hume <rhum...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> To learn how to properly use Solr, I'm building a little experimental
>> project with it to search for used car listings.
>> 
>> Car listings appear on a variety of different places ... central places
>> Craigslist and also many many individual Used Car dealership websites.
>> 
>> I am wondering, should I:
>> 
>> (a) deploy a Solr search engine and build individual indexers for every
>> type of web site I want to find listings on?
>> 
>> or
>> 
>> (b) build my own database to store car listings, and then build services
>> that scrape data from different sites and feed entries into the database;
>> then point my Solr search to my database, one simple source of listings?
>> 
>> My concerns are:
>> 
>> With (a) ... I have to be smart enough to understand all those different
>> data sources and remove/update listings when they change; while this be
>> harder to do with custom Solr indexers than writing something from scratch?
>> 
>> With (b) ... I'm maintaining a huge database of all my listings which seems
>> redundant; google doesn't make a *copy* of everything on the internet, it
>> just knows it's there.  Is maintaining my own database a bad design?
>> 
>> Thanks for reading!

Reply via email to