<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xml:lang="en-us" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><title>Simon Willison's Weblog: xapian</title><link href="http://simonwillison.net/" rel="alternate"/><link href="http://simonwillison.net/tags/xapian.atom" rel="self"/><id>http://simonwillison.net/</id><updated>2010-09-02T18:01:00+00:00</updated><author><name>Simon Willison</name></author><entry><title>Who are major competitors to Solr?</title><link href="https://simonwillison.net/2010/Sep/2/who-are-major-competitors/#atom-tag" rel="alternate"/><published>2010-09-02T18:01:00+00:00</published><updated>2010-09-02T18:01:00+00:00</updated><id>https://simonwillison.net/2010/Sep/2/who-are-major-competitors/#atom-tag</id><summary type="html">
    &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;My answer to &lt;a href="https://www.quora.com/Who-are-major-competitors-to-Solr/answer/Simon-Willison"&gt;Who are major competitors to Solr?&lt;/a&gt; on Quora&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;ElasticSearch is a really interesting one - it's the same underlying search library (Lucene) and the same integration model (an HTTP interface) but takes quite a different approach. It hasn't been around for a long time but it looks very impressive: &lt;span&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.elasticsearch.com/"&gt;http://www.elasticsearch.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Other than that, popular open source search engines include Sphinx and Xapian. I'm a big fan of talking to a search engine via HTTP, so I've been keeping an eye on the &lt;span&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.flax.co.uk/"&gt;http://www.flax.co.uk/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt; project which does that for Xapian.&lt;/p&gt;
    
        &lt;p&gt;Tags: &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/apache"&gt;apache&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/lucene"&gt;lucene&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/search"&gt;search&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/search-engines"&gt;search-engines&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/solr"&gt;solr&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/sphinx-search"&gt;sphinx-search&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/xapian"&gt;xapian&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/quora"&gt;quora&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    

</summary><category term="apache"/><category term="lucene"/><category term="search"/><category term="search-engines"/><category term="solr"/><category term="sphinx-search"/><category term="xapian"/><category term="quora"/></entry><entry><title>Xapian performance comparision with Whoosh</title><link href="https://simonwillison.net/2009/Feb/14/xapian/#atom-tag" rel="alternate"/><published>2009-02-14T13:15:15+00:00</published><updated>2009-02-14T13:15:15+00:00</updated><id>https://simonwillison.net/2009/Feb/14/xapian/#atom-tag</id><summary type="html">
    
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href="http://xapian.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/xapian-performance-comparision-with-whoosh/"&gt;Xapian performance comparision with Whoosh&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
Whoosh appears to be around four times slower than Xapian for indexing and empty cache searches, but Xapian with a full cache blows Whoosh out of the water (5408 searches/second compared to 26.3). Considering how fast Xapian is, that’s still a pretty impressive result for the pure-Python Whoosh.


    &lt;p&gt;Tags: &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/full-text-search"&gt;full-text-search&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/python"&gt;python&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/richard-boulton"&gt;richard-boulton&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/search"&gt;search&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/whoosh"&gt;whoosh&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/xapian"&gt;xapian&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;



</summary><category term="full-text-search"/><category term="python"/><category term="richard-boulton"/><category term="search"/><category term="whoosh"/><category term="xapian"/></entry></feed>