On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 06:36:11PM -0500, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Dave Page wrote:
> >Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >>Just as a datapoint, we did try to use mnogosearch for the
> >>postgresql.org website+archives search, and it fell over completely.
> >>Indexing took way too long, and we had search times several thousand
> >>times longer than with tsearch2.
> >>That said, I'm sure there are cases when it works fine :-)
> >There are - in fact before your time the site did use Mnogosearch. We
> >moved to our own port of ASPSeek when we outgrew Mnogo's capabilities,
> >and then to your TSearch code when we outgrew ASPSeek.
> At risk of pulling this way too far off topic, may I ask how many
> documents (mail messages) you were dealing with when things started to
> fall apart with mnogo? We're looking at it for a new project that will
> hopefully get bigger and bigger. We will be throwing groups of mailing
> lists into their own mnogo config/tables... If we should save ourselves
> the pain and look at something more homebrew, then we'll start
> investigating "Tsearch".
I don't know when it broke exactly, but I know we're currently doing
about 600,000 documents. AFAIK it started to fall apart pretty long
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Dave Page||Date: 2007-02-28 08:33:30|
|Subject: Re: Writting a "search engine" for a pgsql DB|
|Previous:||From: ITAGAKI Takahiro||Date: 2007-02-28 07:10:09|
|Subject: Re: Dead Space Map version 2|