Has anyone run any comparisons between Ferret and Lucene 2.3.1?
I saw many comparisons between older versions claiming Ferret is 2x
faster but these are outdated and I cannot use these metrics to make
any sort of decisions. Lucene is claiming to have made major speed
improvements in version 2.3. While my company is looking into Lucene
2.3.1, I am trying to see if Ferret being faster and quite possibly
better than Lucene is a better direction (also I’d get a chance to
plug Ruby into the system :))
If anyone has done any metrics recently can you please post the
results you have, also please indicate how much time was spent
optimizing Lucene and Ferret, or only minimal optimizations were
attempted.
Thanks in advance to anyone who posts.
On Mar 14, 2008, at 7:24 AM, [email protected] wrote:
If anyone has done any metrics recently can you please post the
results you have, also please indicate how much time was spent
optimizing Lucene and Ferret, or only minimal optimizations were
attempted.
Thanks in advance to anyone who posts.
Which one gives you higher quality search results? Ferret is supposed
to be a port of Lucene, but Lucene is Lucene. Better? Worse? The
same? I don’t know, but I’d rather be a bit slower and get more
relevant matches and if the result set is different that would be my
main decision point. I’ve tried acts_as_ferret and acts_as_solr in
Rails apps and for the simple case where the data is pretty different,
one record to the next, the results are pretty good. It’s where you
have clustering that a problem can occur. (Think about indexing topics
about Ruby that contain words similar to “active”.)
HTH