> FWIW, As a consumer I'm not excited about seeing ES make its way back into > the katello ecosystem. All of my opinion is based on the fact that I use > pulp inside Katello.
Me neither. > PostgreSQL's more recent versions extended to NoSQL feature sets that can > be very performant. Simply googling PostgreSQL NoSQL points to lots of > articles on it. Actually full text search is a feature that is in PostgreSQL for years as a plugin and it was included in core I think somewhere in 8.x series. I am not sure if this fulfills the NoSQL buzzword, but it's something that works just fine with gigabytes of data (which I tested myself). It integrates with ispell for stemming (which is really great feature that Lucene didn't have on par for years) and configuration is trivial. Having the search integrated in one database is huge benefit. Separate indexing components tend to be slow on updates with possibility to become out of sync. Data can be reindexed, but that does not solve the root cause of a problem. I expect Pulp will be indexing only some parts of data - I can imagine package names do not need to be indexed at all since they have their own index already and with PostgreSQL integrated solution you can use them both (package name index plus full text for let's say errata texts if I understand your motivation correctly. Also, having all the data under one roof (and one transaction) can be really big deal for data integrity, backup and security. As a (small but) Lucene contributor and with experiences with Lucene, ES and PostgreSQL full text search capabilities, I'd try to evaluate the PostgreSQL option for real. Searching API is usually quite easy, the most difficult part is preparing the data. And you will be doing that regardless of the chosen technology stack. Therefore I think the missing django plugin for PostgreSQL full text search might not be the biggest issue at all. Google found some links if you want to see some comparison: http://es.slideshare.net/billkarwin/full-text-search-in-postgresql PostgreSQL full text outperforms Lucene 4 times in this one and takes less index data on disk. This was just a quick search, but I want to show that Lucene/ES won't be faster than PostgreSQL by order of magnitude. And RDBMS scaling is not a *real* issue for decades. I am really happy you are back in RDBMS business folks :-) -- Later, Lukas #lzap Zapletal _______________________________________________ Pulp-list mailing list Pulp-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list