maria-developers team mailing list archive

[Andrew Aksyonoff <shodan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Michael,

Looks like I've overlooked this email back then. :(  Peter pinged
me about Sphinx vs Maria status recently and I just found it.  Well,
hopefully better late than never! 

Sunday, June 7, 2009, 1:18:30 PM, you wrote:
MW> Andrew, what are the possible drawbacks you can see with having
MW> Sphinx to be a part of MairaDB for a user that is not using Sphinx?

Can't think of any.  SphinxSE is a mere client and as such does not
allocate any big RAM buffers or other resources.

MW> I assume that if Sphinx is not enabled, it will not take any
MW> resources.

MW> If Sphinx is enabled but not used, what are the resorces it would use?

Pretty much none, AFAIK.

---

On an unrelated note, we're working on so called RT backend here, and
it will allow all the normal CRUD operations in run time (as opposed to
only having reads against a static fulltext index that we have now).

When it's done it'll be also technically possible to integrate it too
- and do so tighter by embedding the library instead of just talking to
Sphinx searchd over network.

Sphinx searchd can now talk MySQL protocol and supports basic SQL
syntax.  So for "just" full text tasks end users don't really need
the integrated version.

However it still might possibly be useful in certain use cases.
To keep FT index in (better) sync with DB data, avoid overheads
of double network roundtrips for additional processing, avoid hassles
of keeping two connections and manually managing two open
transactions, etc.

So I wonder what'd be your opinion about the integration - whether
it seems useful at all, and if yes, whether network client or embedded
library route seems better.

-- 
Best regards,
 Andrew                            mailto:shodan@xxxxxxxxx