3 ms·
> This meant Lucene was less concerned with things like MVCC, ACID, and 3-NF, and was instead concerned with much more practical concerns, like how to build a f
by dagenix 5y ago
> This meant Lucene was less concerned with things like MVCC, ACID, and 3-NF, and was instead concerned with much more practical concerns, like how to build a fast and humane interface for unstructured data.
I absolutely hate this attitude. Different use cases have different requirements. The author here appears to be dismissing any use case different than their own as not practical.
- rjbwork 5y agoTotally agree. I have a hard time taking seriously a perspective on the merits of a data technology that is so dismissive towards concerns like MVCC, ACID, and normal forms. These have been foundational to data technologies for nearly 50 years at this point for a reason. To discard them as "impractical" indicates to me a severe immaturity of perspective.
- nemo44x 5y agoYou can use Lucene and implement these types of features on top of it if they're important to you. I think what the author was trying to say was the Lucene contributors decided to focus on a certain thing and leave other implementation features up to people using the library. Lucene gives you a lot of levers to control how it works and if you want to build a distributed, MVCC, ACID compliant datastore on top of it, you can. It's just not a concern of the library.