rum VS litestream

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.

I have not, but I keep meaning to collate everything I've learned into a set of useful defaults just to remind myself what settings I should be enabling and why.

Regarding Litestream, I learned pretty much all I know from their documentation: https://litestream.io/

This presentation is focused on the use-case of vertically scaling a single server and driving everything through that app server, which is running SQLite embedded within your application process.

This is the sweet-spot for SQLite applications, but there have been explorations and advances to running SQLite across a network of app servers. LiteFS (https://fly.io/docs/litefs/), the sibling to Litestream for backups (https://litestream.io), is aimed at precisely this use-case. Similarly, Turso (https://turso.tech) is a new-ish managed database company for running SQLite in a more traditional client-server distribution.

This post intends to help you setup replication for SQLite using Litestream.

I've been messing around with litestream. It is so cool. And, I either found a bug in the -timestamp switch or don't understand it correctly.

What I want to do is time travel into my sqlite database. I'm trying to do some forensics on why my web service returned the wrong data during a production event. Unfortunately, after the event, someone deleted records from the database and I'm unsure what the data looked like and am having trouble recreating the production issue.

Litestream has this great switch: -timestamp. If you use it (AFAICT) you can time travel into your database and go back to the database state at that moment. However, it does not seem to work as I expect it to:

https://github.com/benbjohnson/litestream/issues/564

I have the entirety of the sqlite database from the production event as well. Is there a way I could cycle through the WAL files and restore the database to the point in time before the records I need were deleted?

Will someone take sqlite and compile it into the browser using WASM so I can drag a sqlite database and WAL files into it and then using a timeline slider see all the states of the database over time? :)

We're using SQLite in production very heavily with millions of databases and fairly high operations throughput.

But we did run into some scariness around trying to use Litestream that put me off it for the time being. Litestream is really cool but it is also very much a cool hack and the risk of database corruption issues feels very real.

The scariness I ran into was related to this issue https://github.com/benbjohnson/litestream/issues/510

Litestream is a library that allows you to easily create backups. You can probably just do analytic queries on the backup data and reduce load on your server.

https://litestream.io/

One possible strategy is to have one directory/file per customer which is one SQLite file. But then as the user logs in, you have to look up first what database they should be connected to.

OR somehow derive it from the user ID/username. Keeping all the customer databases in a single directory/disk and then constantly "lite streaming" to S3.

Because each user is isolated, they'll be writing to their own database. But migrations would be a pain. They will have to be rolled out to each database separately.

One upside is, you can give users the ability to take their data with them, any time. It is just a single file.

[0]. https://litestream.io/

Upstream Kuma uses a local SQLite database to store account data, configuration for services to monitor, notification settings, and more. To make sure that our data is available across redeploys, we will bundle Uptime Kuma with Litestream, a project that implements streaming replication for SQLite databases to a remote object storage provider. Effectively, this allows us to treat the local SQLite database as if it were securely stored in a remote database.