bleve VS quickwit

I don't have the answer to that, but the project has been alive for many years. Seems maybe you should find the answer since you are developing a competing solution? Also it might be a good reference project for solving similar problems to yours. They do have bench tests you could play with https://github.com/blevesearch/bleve/blob/master/query_bench_test.go

I know of https://github.com/blevesearch/bleve and I think there was another project for full text search that I can't find now.

I would be interested in such a testbed. I would also like to know how Bleve Search (https://github.com/blevesearch/bleve) turns out.

I have for many years now a small search engine project in my free-time pipeline, but I'm before crawling even and I intend to sit for searching part after some of that.

Haha. Seriously I can’t tell the difference between these libraries https://github.com/blevesearch/bleve

I've never worked on a project that encompasses as many computer science algorithms as a search engine. There are a lot of topics you can lookup in "Information Storage and Retrieval":

- Tries (patricia, radix, etc...)

- Trees (b-trees, b+trees, merkle trees, log-structured merge-tree, etc..)

- Consensus (raft, paxos, etc..)

- Block storage (disk block size optimizations, mmap files, delta storage, etc..)

- Probabilistic filters (hyperloloog, bloom filters, etc...)

- Binary Search (sstables, sorted inverted indexes, roaring bitmaps)

- Ranking (pagerank, tf/idf, bm25, etc...)

- NLP (stemming, POS tagging, subject identification, sentiment analysis etc...)

- HTML (document parsing/lexing)

- Images (exif extraction, removal, resizing / proxying, etc...)

- Queues (SQS, NATS, Apollo, etc...)

- Clustering (k-means, density, hierarchical, gaussian distributions, etc...)

- Rate limiting (leaky bucket, windowed, etc...)

- Compression

- Applied linear algebra

- Text processing (unicode-normalization, slugify, sanitation, lossless and lossy hashing like metaphone and document fingerprinting)

- etc...

I'm sure there is plenty more I've missed. There are lots of generic structures involved like hashes, linked-lists, skip-lists, heaps and priority queues and this is just to get 2000's level basic tech.

- https://github.com/quickwit-oss/tantivy

- https://github.com/valeriansaliou/sonic

- https://github.com/mosuka/phalanx

- https://github.com/meilisearch/MeiliSearch

- https://github.com/blevesearch/bleve

- https://github.com/thomasjungblut/go-sstables

A lot of people new to this space mistakenly think you can just throw elastic search or postgres fulltext search in front of terabytes of records and have something decent. The problem is that search with good rankings often requires custom storage so calculations can be sharded among multiple nodes and you can do layered ranking without passing huge blobs of results between systems.

For those curious, I'm on my 3rd search engine as I keep discovering new methods of compactly and efficiently processing and querying results.

There isn't a one-size-fits all approach, but I've never worked on a project that encompasses as many computer science algorithms as a search engine.

- Tries (patricia, radix, etc...)

- Trees (b-trees, b+trees, merkle trees, log-structured merge-tree, etc..)

- Consensus (raft, paxos, etc..)

- Block storage (disk block size optimizations, mmap files, delta storage, etc..)

- Probabilistic filters (hyperloloog, bloom filters, etc...)

- Binary Search (sstables, sorted inverted indexes)

- Ranking (pagerank, tf/idf, bm25, etc...)

- NLP (stemming, POS tagging, subject identification, etc...)

- HTML (document parsing/lexing)

- Images (exif extraction, removal, resizing / proxying, etc...)

- Queues (SQS, NATS, Apollo, etc...)

- Clustering (k-means, density, hierarchical, gaussian distributions, etc...)

- Rate limiting (leaky bucket, windowed, etc...)

- text processing (unicode-normalization, slugify, sanitation, lossless and lossy hashing like metaphone and document fingerprinting)

- etc...

I'm sure there is plenty more I've missed. There are lots of generic structures involved like hashes, linked-lists, skip-lists, heaps and priority queues and this is just to get 2000's level basic tech.

- https://github.com/quickwit-oss/tantivy

- https://github.com/valeriansaliou/sonic

- https://github.com/mosuka/phalanx

- https://github.com/meilisearch/MeiliSearch

- https://github.com/blevesearch/bleve

A lot of people new to this space mistakenly think you can just throw elastic search or postgres fulltext search in front of terabytes of records and have something decent. That might work for something small like a curated collection of a few hundred sites.

Search in SQL databases is a tough beast to get it right. And given that we support MySQL and Postgres both, it gets even harder to support quirks of both of them.

In enterprise editions, the only addition is Elasticsearch. But in our open-source version, we do have support for https://github.com/blevesearch/bleve. Although, it's in beta, we have a lot of customers using it.

I am wondering if you have tried using it and didn't like it?

Hi folks, Quickwit cofounder here.

We started Quickwit 3 years ago with a POC, "Searching the web for under $1000/month" (see HN discussions [0]), with the goal of making a robust OSS alternative to Elasticsearch / Splunk / Datadog.

We have reached a significant milestone with our latest release (0.7) [1], as we have witnessed users of the nightly version of Quickwit deploy clusters with hundreds of nodes, ingest hundreds of terabytes of data daily, and enjoy considerable cost savings.

To give you a concrete example, one company is ingesting hundreds of terabytes of logs daily and migrating from Elasticsearch to Quickwit. They divided their compute costs by 5x and storage costs by 2x while increasing retention from 3 to 30 days. They also increased their durability, accuracy with exactly-once semantics thanks to the native Kafka support, and elasticity.

The 0.7 release also brings better integrations with the Observability ecosystem: improvements of the Elasticsearch-compatible API and better support of OpenTelemetry standards, Grafana, and Jaeger.

Of course, we still have a lot of work to be a fully-fledged observability engine, and we would love to get some feedback or suggestions.

To give you a glance at our 2024 roadmap, we planned to focus on Kibana/OpenDashboard integration, metrics support, and pipe-based query language.

[0] Searching the web for under $1000/month: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27074481

[1] Release blog post: https://quickwit.io/blog/quickwit-0.7

[2] Open Source Repo: https://github.com/quickwit-oss/quickwit

[3] Home Page: https://quickwit.io

We tested S3 Express for our search engine quickwit[0] a couple of weeks ago.

While this was really satisfying on the performance side, we were a bit disappointed by the price, and I mostly agree with the article on this matter.

I can see some very specific use cases where the pricing should be OK but currently, I would say most of our users should just stay on the classic S3 and add some local SSD caching if they have a lot of requests.

[0] https://github.com/quickwit-oss/quickwit/

Hi HN, I’m one of the builders of Quickwit, a cloud-native OSS search engine for observability. As of 2023, we support logs and traces, metrics will come in 2024.

You know the pitch: while software like Datadog or Splunk are great, they often comes with hefty price tags. Our mission is to offer an affordable alternative. So we’ve built Quickwit, we’ve made it compatible with the observabilty ecosystem (OpenTelemetry, Jaeger, Grafana) and above all, we’ve made it cost-efficient / “easy” to scale (well it’s never easy to scale to petabytes..).

To give you a glance at the engine performance I made a benchmark on the GitHub Archive dataset, 23 TB of events, here are the main observations:

Indexing: costs $2 per ingested TB. With 4CPU, throughput is at 20MBs However, you'll observe > 30MB throughput on simpler datasets, like logs and traces.

Search: a typical query costs $0.0002 per TB (considering both CPU time and GET request costs). Using 8CPU, a simple query on 23TB is achieved in under a second.

Storage: on S3, it costs $8 per ingested TB per month on the GitHub Archive dataset. With logs and traces, you might see costs around $5/ingested TB due to a 2x better compression ratio.

I'm eager to get your thoughts on this!

Benchmark: https://quickwit.io/blog/benchmarking-quickwit-engine-on-an-...

Github repo: https://github.com/quickwit-oss/quickwit/

Website: https://quickwit.io/

- On S3, it costs $8 per ingested TB per month on the GitHub Archive dataset. With logs and traces, you might see costs around $4/ingested TB due to a 2x better compression ratio.

I'm eager to get your thoughts on this!

[0] Benchmark: https://quickwit.io/blog/benchmarking-quickwit-engine-on-an-...

Quickwit (https://quickwit.io/) | Paris, France | Onsite and remote (based in Europe) | Full-time

The company is fully remote but we also have a small office in Paris. We prefer candidates based in Europe but can make exceptions for the right profiles.

- Senior Software Engineer 80-110k€ + 0.25-1% equity based on experience.

    We’re looking for a senior software engineer to contribute to [Quickwit](https://github.com/quickwit-oss/quickwit), our open-source search and analytics engine. We have an ambitious roadmap for the next 18 months (performance optimization, distributed storage, support for SQL, query optimizer, revamp of our execution engine, etc.), and this is a great opportunity to shape the future of Quickwit while tackling fun and challenging problems in the field of distributed databases.

In our latest blog post, we walk you through the steps of instrumenting your Rust application and monitoring the performance on Grafana using Quickwit + Jaeger.

Link: https://github.com/quickwit-oss/quickwit