Menu
There are several advantages to use Solr 1.4 (out-of-the-box facetting search, grouping, replication, http administration vs. luke, ...).
Even if I embed a search-functionality in my Java application I could use SolrJ to avoid the HTTP trade-off when using Solr. Is SolrJ recommended at all?
So, when would you recommend to use "pure-Lucene"? Does it have a better performance or requires less RAM? Is it better unit-testable?
PS: I am aware of this question.
767
A simple way to conceptualize the relationship between Solr and Lucene is that of a car and its engine. You can't drive an engine, but you can drive a car. Similarly, Lucene is a programmatic library which you can't use as-is, whereas Solr is a complete application which you can use out-of-box.
Solr is built on top of lucene to provide a search platform. SOLR is a wrapper over Lucene index. It is simple to understand: SOLR is car and Lucene is its engine. You just need to know how to drive car (SOLR) and also need to know few things of engine (Lucene) in case if there will be any issue in your car engine.
Apache Lucene™ is a high-performance, full-featured search engine library written entirely in Java. It is a technology suitable for nearly any application that requires structured search, full-text search, faceting, nearest-neighbor search across high-dimensionality vectors, spell correction or query suggestions.
Both of them are built on top of Apache Lucene, so the features they support are very similar. However, they differ significantly in terms of deployment, scalability, query language, and many other functionalities.
If you have a web application, use Solr - I've tried integrating both, and Solr is easier. Otherwise, if you don't need Solr's features (the one that comes to mind as being most important is faceted search), then use Lucene.
151
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
