lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adrien Grand <>
Subject Re: Storing Documents in Lucene
Date Fri, 29 Mar 2013 01:24:32 GMT
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Paul <> wrote:
> Hi,

Hi Paul,

> Some of the stuff I've read suggests that Lucene is not especially well-suited to storing
the documents. It's supposed to be great at indexing those documents, but not so great at
storing the docs themselves.
> Can someone shed some light on this?

I'd say that it is the same problem as with other databases: The
problem with large stored fields is that they might make the I/O cache
of your operating system go crazy and make search slower. However, if
your fields are small (ie. not high-resolution photos), I think it is
reasonable to store them in the Lucene index, especially now that
Lucene compresses stored fields.

> If this is true, then am I right to think that the typical Lucene use case is to
>          a. Index a document
>          b. Store in the index some kind of unique document identifier that is meaningful
to the
>               "native" application
>          c. Search the index, obtain this ID, and present it to the native app to fetch
the original
>                document?

If you need to store your documents somewhere else anyway, this
approach is good. But you could use Lucene as your primary store as

> This came up in the context of trying to compare MongoDB and Lucene. But as I dug into
it I began to think that this might be an apples to oranges comparison. MongoDB builds indices
as you insert documents, but it seems like Lucene is more about the indexing and less about
storing documents.

Lucene being only a library, you might be interested to check out Solr
or ElasticSearch which are more comparable with MongoDB than Lucene.

I hope this helps!


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

View raw message