Re: PG vs ElasticSearch for Logs

From: Rafal Pietrak <rafal(at)ztk-rp(dot)eu>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PG vs ElasticSearch for Logs
Date: 2016-08-19 10:25:00
Message-ID: 43fc4b20-8fb2-834d-2dcb-45aa9d6ef25d@ztk-rp.eu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

W dniu 19.08.2016 o 10:57, Thomas Güttler pisze:
>
>
> Am 19.08.2016 um 09:42 schrieb John R Pierce:
[-------------]
>> in fact thats several rows/second on a 24/7 basis
>
> There is no need to store them more then 6 weeks in my current use case.
>
> I think indexing in postgres is much faster than grep.

Not so much IMHE(xperience).

1. if you know what you are looking for: grep's the best

2. if you dont .... grep (or more/less/vi) is the best.

only when you routinely update/join/etc, RDBMS really shines.But that's
not what you normally do with your logs. Right?

but then again. there is an additional benefit of "having everyting
under one hood" - so standarising on a single repository (like rdbms)
has its benefits.

regards,

-R

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Kretschmer 2016-08-19 10:44:02 Re: PG vs ElasticSearch for Logs
Previous Message Thomas Güttler 2016-08-19 10:06:05 Re: PG vs ElasticSearch for Logs