You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to solr-user@lucene.apache.org by "Gargate, Siddharth" <sg...@ptc.com> on 2009/03/24 05:27:56 UTC

javabin vs xml

Hi,
    I just want to clear few things. 
As far as I know, javabin is the default format used by SolrJ while
searching.
And for update requests default format is XML; XMLUpdateRequestHandler
is used.
If we set the request writer to BinaryRequestWriter then update request
is in javabin format and BinaryUpdateRequestHandler is used. 
BinaryRequestWriter is supposed to be fast and efficient.
After SOLR-973 update request is still in XML format, but the XML is
directly written to the server.
Please correct me if I am wrong about the default behavior. Also, please
let me know which one would be better in performance,
XMLUpdateRequestHandler or BinaryUpdateRequestHandler?

Thanks,
Siddharth

Re: javabin vs xml

Posted by Noble Paul നോബിള്‍ नोब्ळ् <no...@gmail.com>.

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Gargate, Siddharth <sg...@ptc.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>    I just want to clear few things.
> As far as I know, javabin is the default format used by SolrJ while
> searching.
> And for update requests default format is XML; XMLUpdateRequestHandler
> is used.
> If we set the request writer to BinaryRequestWriter then update request
> is in javabin format and BinaryUpdateRequestHandler is used.
> BinaryRequestWriter is supposed to be fast and efficient.
> After SOLR-973 update request is still in XML format, but the XML is
> directly written to the server.



Your understanding is correct
> Please correct me if I am wrong about the default behavior. Also, please
> let me know which one would be better in performance,
> XMLUpdateRequestHandler or BinaryUpdateRequestHandler?

BinaryUpdateRequestHandler is faster because you do not have the xml
parsing overhead and the datasize is small (so less bandwidth) .
>
> Thanks,
> Siddharth
>



-- 
--Noble Paul