3 ms·
Major parts of that aren't true. I think something like 30% of queries have never been seen before, and Google provides low latency on those as well.
by moultano 16y ago
Major parts of that aren't true. I think something like 30% of queries have never been seen before, and Google provides low latency on those as well.
- snprbob86 16y agoCut him some slack, it was clearly a simplification. Also, you're wrong to declare him inaccurate. Even if 30% of queries are truly unique (a number that people have quoted from years ago, may no longer be true) caching 70% of the queries is a big win. Also, instant search is heavily relying on Google Suggest, which by it's very nature, are queries which have been performed already, so are trivially cacheable.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- percept 16y agoI've always used lengthy, quoted search phrases, but what's really interesting is that Google's autocomplete has slowly trained monkey-me to follow the well-worn path and use the search terms it suggests. It's a great example of using the UI to encourage a desired behavior.
- jerf 16y agoSo, let's just turn off caching and triple or quadruple the size of the Google cluster, eh? No big deal. I completely fail to see how you think that disproves my point.
- moultano 16y agoI should probably mention that I work in search quality at Google. The part I took issue with is "Google can take a couple of seconds if you throw a truly novel query at it." which is definitely not true. Google can't cache nearly as much as you would expect, not because the queries change, but because the results change.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]