Lunr.js - Simple full-text search in your browser

I see you are using my stemmer implementation ... snowball and porter2 are better - git clone that instead.<p>In fact, if you had poked around, you probably could have snagged about 90% of this code from various projects ... too bad I didn't put it together like you did.<p>Ah well ... internet fame points to you I guess.

There's a detailed write up from the author about how it all works at: <a href="http://blog.new-bamboo.co.uk/2013/02/26/full-text-search-in-your-browser" rel="nofollow">http://blog.new-bamboo.co.uk/2013/02/26/full-text-search-in-...</a>

As for server side, reds is a simple full-text search module of Node.js. <a href="https://github.com/visionmedia/reds" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/visionmedia/reds</a>

How does this compare to <a href="http://reyesr.github.com/fullproof/" rel="nofollow">http://reyesr.github.com/fullproof/</a>?

I created a small Jekyll plugin to add full-text search using lunr.js for the generated, static sites.<p><a href="https://github.com/slashdotdash/jekyll-lunr-js-search" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/slashdotdash/jekyll-lunr-js-search</a>

I think I'll put this to use in an internal admin/support system in need of search. All the data is on the client already (AngularJS), and it's less than thousand docs for now.

I am sure there are some applications that might need this due to obfuscation of data from the users... But doesn't the browser already have full text search? (Control-F)?

&#62; A browser is required for running the tests.<p>Why? This is a red flag.

Any stats on the limitations ?<p>I'm wondering how efficient this would be given that indexing a lot of data via javascript might really not be a good idea..

Depending on the performance of this, it might be awesome to have some serialization format (i.e. inverted, normalized, tokenized JSON).

How do you index your pages? is that a manual process by creating your json file to be read?

This is amazing, and perfect timing for me. Thanks!!