Subject: Re: Suggestion for improving Archives

From: "John Hansen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 04:50:51 +1000

Hi,

> 
> I could configure search daemon at pgsql.ru to allow search 
> requests from archives.postgresl.org via perl interface, so 
> results could be wrapped into any design.
> 

I currently run search.postgresql.org, and it can be integrated into any
design as well, either using the (ASPseek) method of a html-like
template, or using XSL (the daemon can be configured to output XML).

> >
> > Drop the search interface and replace it with links to pgsql.ru and 
> > Google Groups.
> >
> > Both of those resources are faster and better search 
> engines than the Mhonarc
> > search could ever be, and neither eats CPU time on hub.org.   Yes?

However, only one of those resources, pgsql.ru, could be made to make
available new threads on an hourly basis, or maybe even realtime.

Either way, I'm not fuzzed, whichever works the best.

... John

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 11:53:53 -0700

Guys,

> Either way, I'm not fuzzed, whichever works the best.

Hmmmm .....

===========================
Click to Search the Archives:

-- PGSQL.ru's Full Text Search of Archives using OpenFTS (fast, all PostgreSQL 
sites)

-- Google Groups (fast, general search of Usenet and PostgreSQL mailing lists)

-- Monharc Archive Search (slow but includes up-to-the-last-hour posts)

===========================

Good?

-- 
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

---

From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 16:10:16 -0300 (ADT)

>> Either way, I'm not fuzzed, whichever works the best.

When is the last time you used the search on archives.postgresql.org?  The 
following was searching mvcc:

"Documents 1-10 of total 1576 found.   Searching in 390035 documents took 
0.037 seconds."

the following was searching 'wal vadim':

"Documents 1-10 of total 880 found.   Searching in 390035 documents took 
0.441 seconds."

the following was searching "postgresql releases 8.0":

"Documents 1-10 of total 2190 found.  Searching in 390035 documents took 
1.882 seconds."

the followign was searching "nested transaction support":

"Documents 1-10 of total 383 found.   Searching in 390035 documents took 
4.714 seconds."

Not what I'd consider "slow" ... granted, that last one on Google too .2 
seconds, but when we can build a server farm like them, then I'll be 
worried about 4secs vs .2 :)

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [email-masked]           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

---

From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 19:57:47 -0000

> "Documents 1-10 of total 383 found. Searching in 390035 documents took
 
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 [email-masked]
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200409041541