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
> When we outgrow PostgreSQL & Tsearch2, then, well, we'll need to stop
> pretending to be Google...
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Geoff Tolley||Date: 2007-02-27 23:42:36|
|Subject: Re: Opinions on Raid|
|Previous:||From: Chris||Date: 2007-02-27 23:05:42|
|Subject: Re: Writting a "search engine" for a pgsql DB|