4 ms·
AKA the indexes are too large and we don't want to spend the money
by mrcarruthers 6y ago
AKA the indexes are too large and we don't want to spend the money
- chinhodado 6y agoI doubt that's the reason, given Microsoft's resources.
- MikeKusold 6y agoA hypothetical conversation: Eng: "Our elasticsearch database has been growing exponentially for years, and in order to keep search alive we need to completely rearchitect it. We estimate it will take a team of 8 people, 1 year to launch a stable alternative." Product: "What if we just reduce the size of the index by removing inactive repositories? This will allow the team to focus on revenue generating features." Eng: "Yeah, that should keep our current solution running for the foreseeable future without significant impact to our customers."
- alkonaut 6y agoThis is something I’d pay for. I don’t need any other GitHub services, but this I’d pay for. Would it be possible to index externally?
- sdesol 6y agoI'm sure money played some part, but the fact is, unless you have researched code search, it's quite a difficult problem to solve. The biggest problem is, it's very difficult to define relevancy, since code search is EXTREMELY context driven. And I'm guessing purging inactive repositories, addresses most of the noise issues they have. However, I'm kind of surprised by a blanket purge like this, as I figured they would take repo stars and other signals into consideration to decide what to purge.
- _flux 6y agoIf it wasn't about money, surely they could have a second index for old code? And then asynchronously query both, filling the fast results in first. Or maybe have a keyword for searching old code, or search if current results seem bad, etc.