What is more efficient?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

What is more efficient?

Dan Wiggin
If I work with groups, whats the best option do do? Use a multiple lucene
index for every group or is bettter an unique index.
For example:
I'm working with groups of people, and the action to add or delete is in
group level but the search is on all groups.
What do you think is the best implementation in lucene? I have any number of
index limitation in Multisearcher?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is more efficient?

Otis Gospodnetic-2
The usual answer: it depends :)
Over on http://www.simpy.com I have similar functionality (groups), and I have them as separate indices.

If you want to be able to reindex individual groups separately, you;ll want them in separate groups.
If groups in aggregate will get very large, perhaps keeping them separate is more scalable.
If you want to distribute groups over multiple servers, keep them separate.
If they are heterogeneous (different fields), this may be another reason to keep them separate.
etc.

Of course, if some of the above don't hold or are not a requirement, a single group may be the way to go for you.

Otis


----- Original Message ----
From: Dan Wiggin <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 6:03:25 AM
Subject: What is more efficient?

If I work with groups, whats the best option do do? Use a multiple lucene
index for every group or is bettter an unique index.
For example:
I'm working with groups of people, and the action to add or delete is in
group level but the search is on all groups.
What do you think is the best implementation in lucene? I have any number of
index limitation in Multisearcher?




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]