rum VS ClickHouse

the rum index has worked well for us on roughly 1TB of pdfs. written by postgrespro, same folks who wrote core text search and json indexing. not sure why rum not in core. we have no problems.

   https://github.com/postgrespro/rum

If you need ranking, and you have the possibility to install PostgreSQL extensions, then you can consider an extension providing RUM indexes: https://github.com/postgrespro/rum. Otherwise, you'll have to use an "external" FTS engine like ElasticSearch.

>Reduce the memory usage of prepared queries

Yes query plan reuse like every other db, this still blows me away PG replans every time unless you explicitly prepare and that's still per connection.

Better full-text scoring is one for me that's missing in that list, TF/IDF or BM25 please see: https://github.com/postgrespro/rum

for postgres, i highly recommend the rum index over the core fts. rum is written by postgrespro, who also wrote core fts and json indexing in pg.

    https://github.com/postgrespro/rum

My experience with Postgres FTS (did a comparison with Elastic a couple years back), is that filtering works fine and is speedy enough, but ranking crumbles when the resulting set is large.

If you have a large-ish data set with lots of similar data (4M addresses and location names was the test case), Postgres FTS just doesn't perform.

There is no index that helps scoring results. You would have to install an extension like RUM index (https://github.com/postgrespro/rum) to improve this, which may or may not be an option (often not if you use managed databases).

If you want a best of both worlds, one could investigate this extensions (again, often not an option for managed databases): https://github.com/matthewfranglen/postgres-elasticsearch-fd...

Either way, writing something that indexes your postgres database into elastic/opensearch is a one time investment that usually pays off in the long run.

Mandatory mention of the RUM extension (https://github.com/postgrespro/rum) if this caught your eye. Lots of tutorials and conference presentations out there showcasing the advantages in terms of ranking, timestamps...

You might be just fine adding an unindexed tsvector column, since you've already filtered down the results.

The GIN indexes for FTS don't really work in conjunction with other indices, which is why https://github.com/postgrespro/rum exists. Luckily, it sounds like you can use your existing indices to filter and let postgres scan for matches on the tsvector.

We have been bitten by the same behavior. I gave a talk with a friend about this exact topic (diagnosing GIN pending list updates) at PGCon 2019 in Ottawa[1][2].

What you need to know is that the pending list will be merged with the main b-tree during several operations. Only one of them is so extremely critical for your insert performance - that is during actual insert. Both vacuum and autovacuum (including autovacuum analyze but not direct analyze) will merge the pending list. So frequent autovacuums are the first thing you should tune. Merging on insert happens when you exceed the gin_pending_list_limit. In all cases it is also interesting to know which memory parameter is used to rebuild the index as that inpacts how long it will take: work_mem (when triggered on insert), autovacuum_work_mem (when triggered during autovauum) and maintainance_work_mem (triggered by a call to gin_clean_pending_list()) define how much memory can be used for the rebuild.

What you can do is:

- tune the size of the pending list (like you did)

- make sure vacuum runs frequently

- if you have a bulk insert heavy workload (ie. nightly imports), drop the index and create it after inserting rows (not always makes sense business wise, depends on your app)

- disable fastupdate, you pay a higher cost per insert but remove the fluctuctuation when the merge needs to happen

The first thing was done in the article. However I believe the author still relies on the list being merged on insert. If vacuums were tuned agressively along with the limit (vacuums can be tuned per table). Then the list would be merged out of bound of ongoing inserts.

I also had the pleasure of speaking with one main authors of GIN indexes (Oleg Bartunov) during the mentioned PGCon. He gave probably the best solution and informed me to "just use RUM indexes". RUM[3] indexes are like GIN indexes, without the pending list and with faster ranking, faster phrase searches and faster timestamp based ordering. It is however out of the main postgresql release so it might be hard to get it running if you don't control the extensions that are loaded to your Postgres instance.

[1] - wideo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brt41xnMZqo&t=1s

[2] - slides https://www.pgcon.org/2019/schedule/attachments/541_Let's%20...

[3] - https://github.com/postgrespro/rum

I suggest to have a look at https://github.com/postgrespro/rum if you haven’t yet. It solves the issue of slow ranking in PostgreSQL FTS.

Yes, we are working on it! :) Taking some of the learnings from current experimental JSON Object datatype, we are now working on what will become the production-ready implementation. Details here: https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickHouse/issues/54864

Variant datatype is already available as experimental in 24.1, Dynamic datatype is WIP (PR almost ready), and JSON datatype is next up. Check out the latest comment on that issue with how the Dynamic datatype will work: https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickHouse/issues/54864#issuec...

In our repository, I've set up a few hard limits: each translation unit cannot spend more than a certain amount of memory for compilation and a certain amount of CPU time, and the compiled binary has to be not larger than a certain size.

When these limits are reached, the CI stops working, and we have to remove the bloat: https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickHouse/issues/61121

Although these limits are too generous as of today: for example, the maximum CPU time to compile a translation unit is set to 1000 seconds, and the memory limit is 5 GB, which is ridiculously high.

I have a project dedicated to this topic: https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickBench

It is important to explain the limitations of a benchmark, provide a methodology, and make it reproducible. It also has to be simple enough, otherwise it will not be realistic to include a large number of participants.

I'm also collecting all database benchmarks I could find: https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickHouse/issues/22398

ClickHouse: A fast open-source column-oriented database management system. ClickHouse is designed for real-time analytics on large datasets and excels in high-speed data insertion and querying, making it ideal for real-time monitoring and reporting.

Today we're going to create an UDF (User-defined Function) in Golang that can be run inside Clickhouse query, this function will parse uuid v1 and return timestamp of it since Clickhouse doesn't have this function for now. Inspired from the python version with TabSeparated delimiter (since it's easiest to parse), UDF in Clickhouse will read line by line (each row is each line, and each text separated with tab is each column/cell value):

For the third, examples here might be analytics plugins in specialized databases like Clickhouse, data-transformations in places like your ETL pipeline using Airflow or Fivetran, or special integrations in your authentication workflow with Auth0 hooks and rules.

Online analytical processing (OLAP) databases like Apache Druid, Apache Pinot, and ClickHouse shine in addressing user-initiated analytical queries. You might write a query to analyze historical data to find the most-clicked products over the past month efficiently using OLAP databases. When contrasting with streaming databases, they may not be optimized for incremental computation, leading to challenges in maintaining the freshness of results. The query in the streaming database focuses on recent data, making it suitable for continuous monitoring. Using streaming databases, you can run queries like finding the top 10 sold products where the “top 10 product list” might change in real-time.

Proton is a lightweight streaming processing "add-on" for ClickHouse, and we are making these delta parts as standalone as possible. Meanwhile contributing back to the ClickHouse community can also help a lot.

Please check this PR from the proton team: https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickHouse/pull/54870

curl https://clickhouse.com/ | sh

But I continue to find garbage in some of our CI scripts.

Here is an example: https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickHouse/pull/58794/files

The right way is to:

- always pin versions of all packages;