i am trying to create a search engine for a large listing site.
the search engine will search through 4 tables. each table being a
separate listing category.
I am debating on weather to use the mysql full text search (MATCH/
AGAINST)
or to create some custom setup without using the the full text.
i just want to know if the match/against is too "heavy" and only slow
down my application. If there are around 15 fields to search in each
table and there are 4 tables, thats 60 fields that have to be indexed
as full text search. would that add a lot of "weight" to the database?

any would be appreciated.
thanks,
gil

On 12 Oct, 15:58, giloosh <giloos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i am trying to create a search engine for a large listing site.
> the search engine will search through 4 tables. each table being a
> separate listing category.
> I am debating on weather to use the mysql full text search (MATCH/
> AGAINST)
> or to create some custom setup without using the the full text.
> i just want to know if the match/against is too "heavy" and only slow
> down my application. If there are around 15 fields to search in each
> table and there are 4 tables, thats 60 fields that have to be indexed
> as full text search. would that add a lot of "weight" to the database?
>
> any would be appreciated.
> thanks,
> gil

FULLTEXT searching can be very fast. It can also be very slow. It can
be better than other methods. It cann also be worse than other
methods. It can do some things that no other method can. It can also
not do some thiongs that other methods can.

Which of these turn out to be true depend on knowing much more about
you data and your application than you have told us here.

Captain Paralytic a écrit :
> Which of these turn out to be true depend on knowing much more about
> you data and your application than you have told us here.
>
You also need "your" instead of "you"

On 12 Oct, 16:51, Antoine Polatouche <anto...@galacsys.com> wrote:
> Captain Paralytic a écrit :> Which of these turn out to be true depend on knowing much more about
> > you data and your application than you have told us here.
>
> You also need "your" instead of "you"

I sure do. I didn't hit the key hard enough. This is a HORRIBLE
keyboard and that happens all to often!

On Oct 12, 11:54 am, Captain Paralytic <paul_laut...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 12 Oct, 16:51, Antoine Polatouche <anto...@galacsys.com> wrote:
>
> > Captain Paralytic a écrit :> Which of these turn out to be true depend on knowing much more about
> > > you data and your application than you have told us here.
>
> > You also need "your" instead of "you"
>
> I sure do. I didn't hit the key hard enough. This is a HORRIBLE
> keyboard and that happens all to often!

so should i use full text search indexes? is that what most search
engines use?

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:30:24 -0000, giloosh wrote:
> On Oct 12, 11:54 am, Captain Paralytic <paul_laut...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 12 Oct, 16:51, Antoine Polatouche <anto...@galacsys.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Captain Paralytic a écrit :> Which of these turn out to be true depend on knowing much more about
>> > > you data and your application than you have told us here.
>>
>> > You also need "your" instead of "you"
>>
>> I sure do. I didn't hit the key hard enough. This is a HORRIBLE
>> keyboard and that happens all to often!
>
> so should i use full text search indexes? is that what most search
> engines use?

Since trying the full-text is certainly easier than writing your custom
earch code, why not try it and see if it performs well enough?

--
25. No matter how well it would perform, I will never construct any sort of
machinery which is completely indestructible except for one small and
virtually inaccessible vulnerable spot.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord