Turbocharging Solr Index Replication with BitTorrent

Re:Turbocharging Solr Index Replication with BitTorrent by joevandyk on Monday January 23, 2012 @02:38PM (#3501769)

How does postgresql's search compare to solr?

(With postgresql, I think replicating the search index to read-only nodes is a solved problem.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Turbocharging Solr Index Replication with BitTorrent by mcfunley on Monday January 23, 2012 @03:07PM (#3501898)

Well, before Etsy switched to Solr we were using postgres tsearch2, and by the end of that search response times were in the 90 second range. And at the time replication wasn't part of postgres so we had a hacked up buggy in-house replicator.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Turbocharging Solr Index Replication with BitTorrent by mcfunley on Monday January 23, 2012 @03:13PM (#3501923)

And the results were god-awful

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Turbocharging Solr Index Replication with BitTorrent by mcfunley on Monday January 23, 2012 @03:21PM (#3501963)

And we replaced sixteen extremely beefy postgres slaves with four commodity solr boxes with plenty of headroom to spare.

(Of course we now have more than four solr slaves.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Turbocharging Solr Index Replication with BitTorrent by robbyt on Monday January 23, 2012 @03:15PM (#3501941)

Depending on your schema, Solr will be much faster than Psql's full text search. Solr's faceted searching is much faster than table JOINs.

But IMHO, the main advantage to use Solr for search instead of Postgres is the query API.

[ Parent | on HN ]