使用 CLucene 与 java lucene
我目前正在将 Java lucene 用于其中一个项目并获得良好的性能。我正在寻找 lucene 的 C/C++ 选项，并在 sourceforge 上发现了 CLucene。
但我想检查 CLucene 是否像 Java lucene 一样稳定可靠，并具有 Java Lucene 支持的所有功能，它是否获得 apache 许可并得到积极支持？如果是，为什么我没有选择在 apache Lucene 站点上下载 CLucene（尽管在 apache lucene 站点上我有 lucene.net 选项）。
想了解更多有关 CLucene 在企业软件中的使用情况。
I am currently using Java lucene for one of the project and getting OK kind of performance. I am looking for C/C++ option for lucene and came across CLucene on sourceforge.
But I wanted to check if CLucene is as stable and reliable as Java lucene and having all features supported by Java Lucene, also is it apache licensed and actively supported ? if YES why I dont have option to download CLucene on apache Lucene site (on apache lucene site I have lucene.net option though).
Would like to understand more on usage of CLucene for enterprise software.
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（3）
CLucene 可在 Apache License v2.0 下使用，并托管于 sourceforge。它不能从 Lucene 网站下载，因为 CLucene 是一个独立的项目。但是，Lucy 是 Lucene 的 C 端口（针对动态语言），可从 Lucene 获取网站，因为它是 Lucene 的子项目。这同样适用于 Lucene.NET。
除非你被迫不使用JVM语言，否则我建议你使用Java版本。
所有开发都是针对 Java 版本完成的，然后有时向后移植到其他端口，例如 CLucene。因此，许多有用的功能仍然只能在 Java 版本中使用（例如函数查询在 CLucene 中不可用）。
关于性能，C/C++有时可能比Java更快，但是Java版本中有很多代码使用了非常简洁的算法来提高性能，例如：
最后但并非最不重要的一点是，Java 版本是经过最多测试的版本，并在许多高流量网站（例如 LinkedIn 或 Twitter）中使用。
CLucene is available under the Apache License v2.0 and is hosted at sourceforge. It is not downloadable from Lucene website because CLucene is an independant project. However, Lucy, which is a C port of Lucene (targetting dynamic languages), is available from Lucene website because it is a sub-project of Lucene. Same applies for Lucene.NET.
Unless you are forced not to use a JVM language, I would recommend you use the Java version.
All developments are done for the Java version and then sometimes backported to other ports such as CLucene. As a consequence, lots of useful features are still only available in the Java version (for example function queries are not available in CLucene).
Regarding performance, C/C++ might sometimes be faster than Java, but there are a lot of pieces of code in the Java version which use very neat algorithms to improve performance, such as:
Last but not least, the Java version is the most tested one and used in a lot of very high-traffic websites such as LinkedIn or Twitter.
CLucene 稳定可靠，并且与 Java 版本（ASL）采用相同的许可证。它没有从 Apache 网站链接，因为该项目不在 ASF 保护下。
CLucene 是 Java Lucene 的逐行移植，并且是本机代码（不在 VM 上运行并执行自己的内存分配/释放等操作），它通常比 Java Lucene 更快。一些基准测试（现在有点旧了）表明了这一点。作为一个精确的端口，它与 Java Lucene 索引 100% 兼容，反之亦然。
使用 CLucene 的唯一缺点是它与当前 Lucene 版本不完全同步。
CLucene is stable and reliable, and under the same license as the Java version (ASL). It is not linked from the Apache websites as this project is not under the ASF umbrella.
CLucene is line-by-line port of Java Lucene, and being native code (not running on a VM and doing it's own memory allocs/deallocs among other things) it is usually faster than Java Lucene. Some benchmarks (a bit old now tho) show that. Being an exact port, it is 100% compatible with Java Lucene indexes and vice versa.
The only drawback to using CLucene is it is not completely up to date with the current Lucene version.
Lucene 的最新版本是 5.2，自 2.3.2 以来，对索引文件格式进行了重大更改，列于 https://lucene.apache.org/core/5_2_1/core/org/apache/lucene/codecs/lucene50/package-summary.html#package_description。我不相信有任何其他可用的东西比 CLucene 更新得更多。
至于Lucy，网站指出：这两个库在文件格式或API方面都不兼容，并且没有计划建立这种兼容性。
The latest version for Lucene is 5.2 and significant changes have been made to the index file format since 2.3.2, listed at https://lucene.apache.org/core/5_2_1/core/org/apache/lucene/codecs/lucene50/package-summary.html#package_description. I don't believe there is anything else available that is more updated than CLucene.
As for Lucy the website states that: the two libraries are not compatible in terms of either file format or API, and there are no plans to establish such compatibility.