Re: PG vs ElasticSearch for Logs - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Rafal Pietrak
Subject Re: PG vs ElasticSearch for Logs
Date
Msg-id 43fc4b20-8fb2-834d-2dcb-45aa9d6ef25d@ztk-rp.eu
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PG vs ElasticSearch for Logs  (Thomas Güttler <guettliml@thomas-guettler.de>)
List pgsql-general

W dniu 19.08.2016 o 10:57, Thomas Güttler pisze:
>
>
> Am 19.08.2016 um 09:42 schrieb John R Pierce:
[-------------]
>> in fact thats several rows/second on a 24/7 basis
>
> There is no need to store them more then 6 weeks in my current use case.
>
> I think indexing in postgres is much faster than grep.

Not so much IMHE(xperience).

1. if you know what you are looking for: grep's the best

2. if you dont .... grep (or more/less/vi) is the best.

only when you routinely update/join/etc, RDBMS really shines.But that's
not what you normally do with your logs. Right?

but then again. there is an additional benefit of "having everyting
under one hood" - so standarising on a single repository (like rdbms)
has its benefits.

regards,

-R


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Güttler
Date:
Subject: Re: PG vs ElasticSearch for Logs
Next
From: Andreas Kretschmer
Date:
Subject: Re: PG vs ElasticSearch for Logs