From: | Miles Elam <miles(dot)elam(at)productops(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | PG-General Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Elastic Search much faster at statistics? |
Date: | 2019-07-08 20:12:54 |
Message-ID: | CAALojA_PpQJsHgfAtxOg0MaT2MB4AWc23tY6MZ23az-Ocj4R6Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Not enough information. It looks far more like he's testing Ruby's support
for ElasticSearch vs ActiveRecord rather than ES vs PostgreSQL. Caching
could definitely hold a role but also choice of indexes. If ES is
calculating some aggregate info on the fly, the equivalent in PG would be a
stats table updated by trigger or as part of a regularly refreshed
materialized view. That said, if ES does some of that aggregation out of
the box, the convenience by default is compelling for some.
There are indeed cases where a caching engine will outperform a general
purpose data management engine. There are many cases where ACID
requirements preclude the use of a dedicated search engine. Use the right
tool for the job, and for a sufficiently large scale, use multiple tools.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 9:54 AM Guyren Howe <guyren(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I find this… surprising. Caching?
>
> http://blog.nrowegt.com/database-vs-elasticsearch-speed-column-statistics/
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | a venkatesh | 2019-07-08 21:36:34 | pgpool, pgmaster and pgslave migration to ubuntu 18.04 |
Previous Message | Andrew Kerber | 2019-07-08 19:41:04 | PGPOOL Question |