lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Balmain" <>
Subject Re: Ferret's changes
Date Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:31:16 GMT
On 10/10/06, Grant Ingersoll <> wrote:
> I would be interested in another survey, this time about how many
> people use a fixed set of Fields in their applications.  The large
> majority of mine do.  I know SOLR supports dynamic fields, but I
> wonder how much they are used.  If there truly is a benefit to it,
> then perhaps we can have an implementation that can utilize them.

I'd be interested to see that too. I'm not sure how you would define
dynamic fields though. In Ferret fields have fixed properties once
they are added to an index. If create a stored field then you can't
decide not to store it at a later date. But you can add new fields to
the index whenever you like. Anyway, I just wanted to clarify that.

> I would like to hear more about your merge strategy and how you do
> the hashing.  Perhaps if we all work through it then can figure out
> some ways to incorporate it.  As for backwards compatibility, we have
> a strategy for dealing with it that I think works (deprecation).
> Furthermore, there is no reason we can't start working towards a new
> framework for indexing/searching that is interface based and allows
> for using the existing format or a newer format as Marvin, Doug and
> others have suggested (in fact we have a first attempt at it as a
> patch).

Some time early next year I should finally have time to get stuck into
the Lucy project. We will definitely be using more of an interface
based design then. I think Marvin's KinoSearch merge model will
probably translate better back into Lucene but we'll have to wait and

> As for benchmarks, in my experience, the people who get all touchy
> are those who are so married to one way of doing things that they
> can't think of any other way to solve a problem.  I think reasonable
> people who want Lucene to be better will take the benchmarks as
> lessons in how to improve Lucene, not as some personal attack on
> them.

I wish more people were as reasonable as you are. I think most people
on the Lucene list are.

> Once I get the basics of our benchmark stuff in place, it
> would be interesting to implement the Ferret version and see how it
> stacks up.  So far, we have been using
> but I can see about
> incorporating the Reuters collection in, as this is much more the
> standard when it comes to these things
> -Grant

When you do get your benchmark stuff in place, I'd be happy to port it
to Ruby/Ferret. Do you have anything currently available?


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message