I guess what I'm most interested in is knowing how it will compare, pricewise and performancewise, to using the datastore for FTS. Obviously the datastore doesn't provide all the bells and whistles, but it's pretty easy to store all the fragments of a set of words in an indexed list property. For example, 'foo' would store 'f', 'fo', 'foo', and now I can do as-you-type queries. Would this be cheaper (both for storage and for queries) with FTS?
I could imagine using this to index geocell queries too. Would this be more or less expensive than a datastore-based solution? Thanks, Jeff On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Christina Ilvento <cilve...@google.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > Let me provide a bit more background on our thinking for pricing for the > Search API. We use the experimental phase for many APIs to test the API's > stability, get developer feedback and to fine-tune our pricing. It's > important to us that we only publish pricing when we are confident that it > won't change drastically in a short time frame, so that our developers will > have a better sense of what to expect going forward. > > That being said, here's the general idea of what we're thinking pricing-wise > for the Search API. We are planning to charge for the Search API based on > three metrics: indexing, searches and storage. Indexing will likely be > charged per GB indexed (or re-indexed) and searches per query. This will > allow our developers to pay for what they use while still being able to > predict their usage (we expect that it's easier to estimate the number of > searches your app will make per day than how many front-end instances you > might need to run a search stack). As noted in our docs, we expect our free > quotas to cover about 1000 searches per day on a 250MB index once we > graduate from experimental -- so that should give you an indication of > whether you will be able to keep your usage under the free quota. > > > > Thanks, > Christina > > On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Jeff Schnitzer <j...@infohazard.org> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Adam Sah <adam....@gmail.com> wrote: >> > - this is pre-release, and if you personally can't bear that risk, then >> > let >> > others play beta-tester for you. >> > - if Google waits for pricing before release then that delays the >> > release, >> > which nobody wants. >> > - pricing can depend on usage patterns, which they only know once they >> > see >> > usage. >> >> It isn't black and white. A little more transparency might entice >> some of the more experienced users to try out the feature and provide >> feedback. It doesn't require firm pricing, but it does require some >> amount of trust that the feature will be priced attainably. >> Unfortunately, there are several recent examples of Google announcing >> prices that effectively take features offline: Backends, XMPP, and >> Maps. I don't have high hopes that FTS will avoid the same fate. >> >> Jeff >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Google App Engine" group. >> To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en. >> > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google App Engine" group. > To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
