[GENERAL] Text Search vs MYSQL vs Lucene
What would be performance of pgSQL text search vs MySQL vs Lucene (flat file) for a 2 terabyte db? thanks for any comments. .V -- Please post on Rich Internet Applications User Interface (RiA/SoA) http://www.portalvu.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] Text Search vs MYSQL vs Lucene
On Thursday 09 Sep 2004 6:26 pm, Vic Cekvenich wrote: What would be performance of pgSQL text search vs MySQL vs Lucene (flat file) for a 2 terabyte db? Well, it depends upon lot of factors. There are few questions to be asked here.. - What is your hardware and OS configuration? - What type of data you are dealing with? Mostly static or frequently updated? - What type of query you are doing. Aggregates or table scan or selective retreival etc. Unfortunately there is no one good answer. If you could provide details, it would help a lot.. Shridhar ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [GENERAL] Text Search vs MYSQL vs Lucene
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 07:56:20AM -0500, Vic Cekvenich wrote: What would be performance of pgSQL text search vs MySQL vs Lucene (flat file) for a 2 terabyte db? thanks for any comments. My experience with tsearch2 has been that indexing even moderately large chunks of data is too slow to be feasible. Moderately large meaning tens of megabytes. Your milage might well vary, but I wouldn't rely on postgresql full text search of that much data being functional, let alone fast enough to be useful. Test before making any decisions. If it's a static or moderately static text corpus you're probably better using a traditional FTS system anyway (tsearch2 has two advantages - tight integration with pgsql and good support for incremental indexing). Two terabytes is a lot of data. I'd suggest you do some research on FTS algorithms rather than just picking one of the off-the-shelf FTS systems without understanding what they actually do. Managing Gigabytes ISBN 1-55860-570-3 covers some approaches. Cheers, Steve ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [GENERAL] Text Search vs MYSQL vs Lucene
It be at least dual opteron 64 w 4 gigs of ram runing fedora with a huge raid striped drives as single volume. A similar system and types of querries would be this: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com So I guess a table scan. .V Shridhar Daithankar wrote: On Thursday 09 Sep 2004 6:26 pm, Vic Cekvenich wrote: What would be performance of pgSQL text search vs MySQL vs Lucene (flat file) for a 2 terabyte db? Well, it depends upon lot of factors. There are few questions to be asked here.. - What is your hardware and OS configuration? - What type of data you are dealing with? Mostly static or frequently updated? - What type of query you are doing. Aggregates or table scan or selective retreival etc. Unfortunately there is no one good answer. If you could provide details, it would help a lot.. Shridhar ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- Please post on Rich Internet Applications User Interface (RiA/SoA) http://www.portalvu.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Text Search vs MYSQL vs Lucene
Steve Atkins wrote: What would be performance of pgSQL text search vs MySQL vs Lucene (flat file) for a 2 terabyte db? thanks for any comments. My experience with tsearch2 has been that indexing even moderately large chunks of data is too slow to be feasible. Moderately large meaning tens of megabytes. My experience with MySQL's full text search as well as the various MySQL-based text indexing programs (forgot the names, it's been a while) for some 10-20GB of mail archives has been pretty disappointing too. My biggest gripe is with the indexing speed. It literally takes days to index less than a million documents. I ended up using Swish++. Microsoft's CHM compiler also has pretty amazing indexing speed (though it crashes quite often when encountering bad HTML). -- dave ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
