Mailing List Archive: Lucene: Java-Dev

A Comparison of Open Source Search Engines

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

srowen at gmail

Jul 6, 2009, 8:06 AM

Post #1 of 9 (771 views)
Permalink

A Comparison of Open Source Search Engines

http://zooie.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/a-comparison-of-open-source-search-engines-and-indexing-twitter/

I imagine many of you already saw this -- Lucene does pretty well in
this "shootout".
The only area it tended to lag, it seems, is memory usage and speed in
some cases.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene

john.wang at gmail

Jul 6, 2009, 1:39 PM

Post #2 of 9 (746 views)
Permalink

Re: A Comparison of Open Source Search Engines [In reply to]

Vik did a very nice job.One thing the experiment did not mention is that
Lucene handles incremental updates, whereas many of the other "competitors"
do not. So the indexing performance comparison is not really fair.

-John

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Sean Owen <srowen [at] gmail> wrote:

>
> http://zooie.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/a-comparison-of-open-source-search-engines-and-indexing-twitter/
>
> I imagine many of you already saw this -- Lucene does pretty well in
> this "shootout".
> The only area it tended to lag, it seems, is memory usage and speed in
> some cases.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene
>
>

john.wang at gmail

Jul 6, 2009, 1:39 PM

Post #3 of 9 (742 views)
Permalink

Re: A Comparison of Open Source Search Engines [In reply to]

earwin at gmail

Jul 6, 2009, 2:01 PM

Post #4 of 9 (745 views)
Permalink

Re: A Comparison of Open Source Search Engines [In reply to]

I'd say out of these libraries only Lucene and Sphinx are worth mentioning.

There's also MG4J, which wasn't covered and has a nice algorithmic background.
Anybody knows other interesting open-source search engines?

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 00:39, John Wang<john.wang [at] gmail> wrote:
> Vik did a very nice job.
> One thing the experiment did not mention is that Lucene handles incremental
> updates, whereas many of the other "competitors" do not. So the indexing
> performance comparison is not really fair.
> -John
>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Sean Owen <srowen [at] gmail> wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://zooie.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/a-comparison-of-open-source-search-engines-and-indexing-twitter/
>>
>> I imagine many of you already saw this -- Lucene does pretty well in
>> this "shootout".
>> The only area it tended to lag, it seems, is memory usage and speed in
>> some cases.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene
>>
>
>

--
Kirill Zakharenko/Кирилл Захаренко (earwin [at] gmail)
Home / Mobile: +7 (495) 683-567-4 / +7 (903) 5-888-423
ICQ: 104465785

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene

eksdev at yahoo

Jul 6, 2009, 2:11 PM

Post #5 of 9 (753 views)
Permalink

Re: A Comparison of Open Source Search Engines [In reply to]

> Anybody knows other interesting open-source search engines?

Minion (https://minion.dev.java.net/)

----- Original Message ----
> From: Earwin Burrfoot <earwin [at] gmail>
> To: java-dev [at] lucene
> Sent: Monday, 6 July, 2009 23:01:52
> Subject: Re: A Comparison of Open Source Search Engines
>
> I'd say out of these libraries only Lucene and Sphinx are worth mentioning.
>
> There's also MG4J, which wasn't covered and has a nice algorithmic background.
> Anybody knows other interesting open-source search engines?
>
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 00:39, John Wangwrote:
> > Vik did a very nice job.
> > One thing the experiment did not mention is that Lucene handles incremental
> > updates, whereas many of the other "competitors" do not. So the indexing
> > performance comparison is not really fair.
> > -John
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://zooie.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/a-comparison-of-open-source-search-engines-and-indexing-twitter/
> >>
> >> I imagine many of you already saw this -- Lucene does pretty well in
> >> this "shootout".
> >> The only area it tended to lag, it seems, is memory usage and speed in
> >> some cases.
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Kirill Zakharenko/Кирилл Захаренко (earwin [at] gmail)
> Home / Mobile: +7 (495) 683-567-4 / +7 (903) 5-888-423
> ICQ: 104465785
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene

john.wang at gmail

Jul 6, 2009, 8:34 PM

Post #6 of 9 (733 views)
Permalink

Re: A Comparison of Open Source Search Engines [In reply to]

mg4j is a nice project. It is missing the incremental aspects as well.The
"older" paper this experiment mentioned contains lucene-mg4j comparisons.

-John

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Earwin Burrfoot <earwin [at] gmail> wrote:

> I'd say out of these libraries only Lucene and Sphinx are worth mentioning.
>
> There's also MG4J, which wasn't covered and has a nice algorithmic
> background.
> Anybody knows other interesting open-source search engines?
>
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 00:39, John Wang<john.wang [at] gmail> wrote:
> > Vik did a very nice job.
> > One thing the experiment did not mention is that Lucene handles
> incremental
> > updates, whereas many of the other "competitors" do not. So the indexing
> > performance comparison is not really fair.
> > -John
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Sean Owen <srowen [at] gmail> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://zooie.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/a-comparison-of-open-source-search-engines-and-indexing-twitter/
> >>
> >> I imagine many of you already saw this -- Lucene does pretty well in
> >> this "shootout".
> >> The only area it tended to lag, it seems, is memory usage and speed in
> >> some cases.
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Kirill Zakharenko/�� (earwin [at] gmail)
> Home / Mobile: +7 (495) 683-567-4 / +7 (903) 5-888-423
> ICQ: 104465785
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene
>
>

otis_gospodnetic at yahoo

Jul 8, 2009, 2:30 PM

Post #7 of 9 (723 views)
Permalink

Re: A Comparison of Open Source Search Engines [In reply to]

Interesting, I never realized there was lucene-java-dev [at] apache .

My thoughts are on http://www.jroller.com/otis/entry/open_source_search_engine_benchmark (and in several comments in the blog itself).

Otis

----- Original Message ----
> From: Sean Owen <srowen [at] gmail>
> To: lucene-java-dev [at] apache
> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2009 11:06:14 AM
> Subject: A Comparison of Open Source Search Engines
>
> http://zooie.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/a-comparison-of-open-source-search-engines-and-indexing-twitter/
>
> I imagine many of you already saw this -- Lucene does pretty well in
> this "shootout".
> The only area it tended to lag, it seems, is memory usage and speed in
> some cases.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene

jhandl at gmail

Jul 8, 2009, 5:02 PM

Post #8 of 9 (725 views)
Permalink

Re: A Comparison of Open Source Search Engines [In reply to]

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Earwin Burrfoot <earwin [at] gmail> wrote:

> Anybody knows other interesting open-source search engines?
>

http://hounder.org

uwe at thetaphi

Jul 8, 2009, 11:11 PM

Post #9 of 9 (722 views)
Permalink

RE: A Comparison of Open Source Search Engines [In reply to]

From the website of Hounder:

How does Hounder compare to Lucene?
Lucene is a full text search library, intended to be a basic building block
for applications needing text search functionality. Hounder, while it uses
Lucene, is a search engine, providing all the required components to gather
and find information with minimum extra coding, and often, no coding at all.

So it is like Solr or Nutch a "search server"/"framework" (or whatever)
around Lucene.

Uwe

-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe [at] thetaphi

_____

From: Jorge Handl [mailto:jhandl [at] gmail]
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 2:02 AM
To: java-dev [at] lucene
Subject: Re: A Comparison of Open Source Search Engines

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Earwin Burrfoot <earwin [at] gmail> wrote:

Anybody knows other interesting open-source search engines?

http://hounder.org

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads