[nycphp-talk] MyISAM vs InnoDB
jmcgraw1 at gmail.com
Fri Jan 22 00:29:41 EST 2010
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Eddie Drapkin <oorza2k5 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Jake McGraw <jmcgraw1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Matt Juszczak <matt at atopia.net> wrote:
>>>> InnoDB for everything but tables that require fulltext search, which
>>>> is not yet supported on InnoDB.
>>> Can always use something like lucene for this.
>> Yea, but then you've got to keep a Tomcat instance up and know Java or
>> use a PHP implementation which can be slow. MySQL Fulltext works
>> really well in most instances.
> That's just a little bit inaccurate. While it certainly helps to know
> Java, running a Solr instance requires only the ability to start a
> java process and read some documentation. The entire thing is
> communicated to / from a REST API and it's configured with (over|very
> well) documented XML files. There's no knowledge of Java or lucene or
> tokenizing or anything other than how to read documentation required.
> It will almost always work out better than MySQL FULLTEXT because Solr
> has some niceties built into it, like search suggestions, spelling
> corrections, stemming, etc. There's a lot of other cool stuff built
> into it now, like document importing (I think they support PDF, MS
> Word, OO.o formats, etc. but I'm not too sure as I don't use that
> feature myself), multi-core searching, there's a bundled tool for
> indexing out of SQL and a lot more I'm sure that I'm forgetting. You
> can go from "no search" to "well implemented, professional feeling
> search" in two or three days, with no prior experience in Java or
> advanced text searching.
This best sums up my feelings:
It wasn't to say that deploying Lucene is some insurmountable task,
just that, if MySQL fulltext works for your use case then why go
through the pain of supporting another application stack.
> New York PHP Users Group Community Talk Mailing List
More information about the talk