Re: Proposing Tracker for inclusion into GNOME 2.18

[Joe Shaw <joeshaw novell com>]

Hi,

On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 00:09 +0100, Alan Horkan wrote:
> What are the chances of a version of Beagle ever using the C Lucene
> backend, which as Jos has mentioned is currently faster?

Lucene performance across the board is pretty great.  I'm not sure that
switching to the C version would buy us a whole lot in Beagle, since any
modest gains would probably be lost in the managed <--> unmanaged
transition.  The main exception would be indexing speed, but that really
only matters for the first time crawl over all your data.

My gut feeling is that the complication in the code and managing the
object lifecycles by hand isn't worth it, but it's something that
someone could hack up.

> Has the C# Lucene diverged too far away from C Lucene?  I have long
> wondered why C# Lucene was developed in the full knowledge that C Lucene
> would be preferable to Gnome and now finally seems like an appropriate
> time to ask.

The indexes are file format compatible.  The APIs are probably similar.
It's worth noting though that CLucene is actually C++, and I believe 
C++isms are exposed in the API, although I might be wrong about that.
That would be a non-starter for Beagle integration.

Joe