Hi,
Thanks for your answer.
I want to refer to your message, because I am trying to choose the right
tool.
1. regarding stemming:
I am running in ms-sql
SELECT * FROM sys.dm_fts_parser ('FORMSOF(INFLECTIONAL,"provide")', 1033,
0, 0)
and I receive
group_id phrase_id occurrence special_term display_term expansion_type
source_term
1 0 1 Exact Match *provided *2 provide
1 0 1 Exact Match *provides *2 provide
1 0 1 Exact Match *providing *2 provide
1 0 1 Exact Match *provide *0 provide
isnt that stemming ?
2. Regarding synonyms
sql server has a full thesaurus
feature<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms142491.aspx>.
Doesnt it mean synonyms?
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Here's a link to various transformations you can do
> while indexing and searching in Solr:
> http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters
> Consider
> > stemming
> > ngrams
> > WordDelimiterFilterFactory
> > ASCIIFoldingFilterFactory
> > phrase queries
> > boosting
> > synonyms
> > blah blah blah
>
> You can't do a lot of these transformations, at least not easily
> in SQL. OTOH, you can't do 5-way joins in Solr. Different problems,
> different tools....
>
> All that said, there's no good reason to use Solr if your use-case
> is satisfied by simple keyword searches that have no transformations,
> mysql etc. work just fine in those cases. It's all about selecting the
> right tool for the use-case.
>
> FWIW,
> Erick
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Mysurf Mail <stammail...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for your answer.
> > Can you please elaborate on
> > "mssql text searching is pretty primitive compared to Solr"
> > (Link or anything)
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> 1> Maybe, maybe not. mssql text searching is pretty primitive
> >> compared to Solr, just as Solr's db-like operations are
> >> primitive compared to mssql. They address different use-cases.
> >>
> >> So, you can store the docs in Solr and not touch your SQL db
> >> at all to return the docs. You can store just the IDs in Solr and
> >> retrieve your docs from the SQL store. You can store just
> >> enough data in Solr to display the results page and when the user
> >> tries to drill down you can go to your SQL database for assembling
> >> the full document. You can..... It all depend on your use case, data
> >> size, all that rot.
> >>
> >> Very often, something like the DB is considered the system-of-record
> >> and it's indexed to Solr (See DIH or SolrJ) periodically.
> >>
> >> There is no underlying connection between your SQL store and Solr.
> >> You control when data is fetched from SQL and put into Solr. You
> >> control what the search experience is. etc.
> >>
> >> 2> Not really :(. See:
> >>
> >>
> http://searchhub.org/dev/2012/07/23/sizing-hardware-in-the-abstract-why-we-dont-have-a-definitive-answer/
> >>
> >> Best
> >> Erick
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Mysurf Mail <stammail...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > I am just starting to learn about solr.
> >> > I want to test it in my env working with ms sql server.
> >> >
> >> > I have followed the tutorial and imported some rows to the Solr.
> >> > Now I have a few noob question regarding the benefits of implementing
> >> Solr
> >> > on a sql environment.
> >> >
> >> > 1. As I understand, When I send a query request over http, I receive a
> >> > result with ID from the Solr system and than I query the full object
> row
> >> > from the db.
> >> > Is that right?
> >> > Is there a comparison next to ms sql full text search which retrieves
> >> the
> >> > full object in the same select?
> >> > Is there a comparison that relates to db/server cluster and multiple
> >> > machines?
> >> > 2. Is there a technic that will assist me to estimate the volume size
> I
> >> > will need for the indexed data (obviously, based on the indexed data
> >> > properties) ?
> >>
>
