Re: Wich hardware suits best for large full-text indexed
От | Ericson Smith |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Wich hardware suits best for large full-text indexed |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 406AF345.1070206@did-it.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Wich hardware suits best for large full-text indexed (Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
Oleg Bartunov wrote: >it's very different story ! There are hundreds *standalone* search engine >based on inverted indices, but you don't have *native* access to metadata >stored in database, so your search collection isn't consistent. >tsearch2 was developed specially for online update and consistency >(think about access control to documents). If you're not care about that >you don't need tsearch2. btw, tsearch2 scaled much better with long >queries. > > > Actually swish-e has excellent support for metadata. This allows you to nicely partition your indices, or to search only user-defined parts based on as much custom meta-data as you'd care to define. Granted tsearch2 allows you to have *live* updates to the index. But we usually reindex nightly and that tends to be good enough for most cases. - Ericson Smith > > > > >>- Ericson >> >>Bill Moran wrote: >> >> >> >>>Diogo Biazus wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Hi folks, >>>> >>>>I have a database using tsearch2 to index 300 000 documents. >>>>I've already have optimized the queries, and the database is vacuumed >>>>on a daily basis. >>>>The stat function tells me that my index has aprox. 460 000 unique >>>>words (I'm using stemmer and a nice stopword list). >>>>The problem is performance, some queries take more than 10 seconds to >>>>execute, and I'm not sure if my bottleneck is memory or io. >>>>The server is a Athlon XP 2000, HD ATA133, 1.5 GB RAM running >>>>postgresql 7.4.3 over freebsd 5.0 with lots of shared buffers and >>>>sort_mem... >>>> >>>>Does anyone has an idea of a more cost eficient solution? >>>>How to get a better performance without having to invest some >>>>astronomicaly high amount of money? >>>> >>>> >>>This isn't hardware related, but FreeBSD 5 is not a particularly >>>impressive >>>performer. Especially 5.0 ... 5.2.1 would be better, but if you're >>>shooting >>>for performance, 4.9 will probably outperform both of them at this >>>stage of >>>the game. >>> >>>Something to consider if the query tuning that others are helping with >>>doesn't >>>solve the problem. Follow through with that _first_ though. >>> >>>However, if you insist on running 5, make sure your kernel is compiled >>>without >>>WITNESS ... it speeds things up noticably. >>> >>> >>> >>---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >>TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? >> >> http://archives.postgresql.org >> >> >> > > Regards, > Oleg >_____________________________________________________________ >Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet, >Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia) >Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/ >phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83 > > >
Вложения
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: