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?
I honestly don't remember now, but it would have been in the tens or
maybe low hundreds of thousands. Don't get me wrong, I've built sites
where Mnogo is still running fine and does a great job - it just doesn't
> 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".
Well put it this way, the PostgreSQL mailing list archives outgrew Mnogo
years ago and even ASPSeek was beginning to struggle when it got removed
a few months back.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2007-02-28 09:51:46|
|Subject: Re: Dead Space Map version 2|
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2007-02-28 07:44:39|
|Subject: Re: Writting a "search engine" for a pgsql DB|