3 ms·
> Its text search solutions come close to ElasticSearch, with - surprisingly - even better performance. PG search may be good enough for certain use cases, but
by rpedela 9y ago
> Its text search solutions come close to ElasticSearch, with - surprisingly - even better performance.
PG search may be good enough for certain use cases, but it doesn't come close to the power of Lucene/Solr/ES. PG only recently added support for phrase search which Lucene has had for years. Lucene has extremely flexible analysis pipeline, BM25, "more like this" queries, simple custom ranking, great language support, "did you mean?", autocomplete, etc. ES in particular is built from the ground up as a clustered solution.
As I said PG may be good enough for some use cases, but to claim it is as good as ES is laughable. And PG certainly doesn't make sense if your product is literally a search product.
- kuschku 9y agoAll things you mentioned can be done in PGSQL with similar performance, actually. I have to build a search product in PGSQL, and I’ve done exactly that (and compared it with ES, Solr and Lucene). For datasets below 50GB the performance is basically the same, you get about the same features, and it works well enough. But you are right, as soon as you want to build more complicated search products, or as soon as you get larger amounts of data, you want a dedicated solution.