Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Using Postgres FTS to minimise the maintenance #28

Open
rach opened this issue Mar 12, 2014 · 2 comments
Open

Using Postgres FTS to minimise the maintenance #28

rach opened this issue Mar 12, 2014 · 2 comments

Comments

@rach
Copy link

rach commented Mar 12, 2014

First, Great initiative.
It will be great to have something like that online, we have got some very cool project which has been build with pyramid.

Recently I did loads of works with Elasticsearch for at the end falling back on the Postegres Full-Text search. The main arguments was that for the project needs, Elasticsearch was not bringing any advantage but only more maintenance issues with maintaining the cluster.

I also wrote a post to explain FTS with Postgres: http://blog.lostpropertyhq.com/postgres-full-text-search-is-good-enough/

Only a suggestion to make like easier but otherwise I have an ansible role that I can share for elastic search.

@sontek
Copy link
Owner

sontek commented Mar 16, 2014

@rach I actually started down that path but I'm most familiar with elasticsearch. I'll look at your post and if it gets me familiar enough with FTS in psql I'd love to have it in (it was the original goal, but since time is limited I went with what I knew)

@rach
Copy link
Author

rach commented Mar 16, 2014

It was only a suggestion to make life easier.
Btw, are you planning to sprint on this project during Pycon?
It will be very useful for us in London, we start to be a bunch of company/product using Pyramid but no body really have much clues.. Same for hiring.
Great initiative.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants