On 2012-11-07 10:14 AM, Timo Sirainen tss@iki.fi wrote:
No, fts-lucene and fts-solr are separate backends. But I do have some small plans to add a few more features to fts-solr.
Thanks again Timo, but one last follow-up...
According to the wiki, Solr is the preferred method, but that seems weird to me - it requires a full blown Solr server that dovecot communicates with using HTTP/XML queries? Maybe not that big a deal, but just sounds like overkill to me, unless you are maybe already using Solr for website searches (which I'm not and have no need for). I would much prefer something simpler that doesn't require any external dependencies like that, so, next choice is Lucene...
Looks much simpler, only requires Lucene's C++ library...
But it builds only a single Lucene index for all mailboxes - not sure if this is good or bad? Seems like it would be better/more efficient (and less chance of index corruption, but most importantly, less overhead in the event that one gets hosed and dovecot needs to rebuild it) to build individual indexes for each mailbox, then, maybe, to provide support for searching ALL mailboxes, have a master index that basically just maintains a list of all of the individual indexes to be used for the search (so it doesn't have to scan all available mailboxes, but which it can do in the event that *it* ever got hosed).
Obviously I don't know much about all this, so may be totally off base...
Thanks again, and for listening to my ramblings,
--
Best regards,
Charles