From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com>
To: pgsql-www@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Suggestion for improving Archives
In-Reply-To: <20040904160437.O812@ganymede.hub.org>
Date: Sat,  4 Sep 2004 19:57:47 -0000
Message-ID: <712f164d866cbd0b6857965a6d04f673@biglumber.com>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
 
> the followign was searching "nested transaction support":
>
> "Documents 1-10 of total 383 found. Searching in 390035 documents took
> 4.714 seconds."
 
The self-reported time should really not be used. I just ran a query, for
example, that took 8 seconds as measured by my local clock, but reported
searching in under 2 seconds: so obviously there are some other factors
here. (I'll give maybe half a second for network times on my end).
 
I prefer pgsql.ru or google because it searches the docs and the mailing
lists, and the quality of the results tend to be higher. While we are here,
the "for files modified" bit of the search.postgresql.org box does not seem
to work: searching for "nested transactions vadim" brings back 62 hits,
regardless of whether I set it to within one day or within 2 years. The
top hit is from June 2000. There is also no way to sort it by date,
which can be extremely important. The ads on every page are annoying as
well.
 
My own personal summary of advantages:
 
pgsql.ru: very fast, searches all sites at once, no advertisements,
nice "group by site" feature, cool Mozilla plugin, BSD-licensed tech,
written by PG developers
 
google: extremely fast, searches many other sources, minimal ads,
order by date, powerful "advanced search" available
 
search.postgresql.org: linked from main site?
 
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200409041541
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
iD8DBQFBOh6NvJuQZxSWSsgRArohAJ9qoVBbhrc/vPntojFTXDocX5EZegCfeHC4
T5VIlIxwEklT6EGquje6w3Y=
=HclZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----