[rt-users] Full-Text Search: RT-4.2.11 MySQL 5.6.25 vs MariaDB 10.0.19+Sphinx
alex at chmrr.net
Wed Jun 10 16:06:40 EDT 2015
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:47:27 +0000 Paul Hirose <pthirose at ucdavis.edu>
> In short, trying to find the best mechanism for FTS, whether I can
> use MySQL 5.6.25 InnoDB, or MariaDB 10.0.19 + Sphinx on RHEL 7.
My answers below assume RT 4.2.11 -- there were some order-of-magnitude
speed improvements to the indexer since 4.2.10. I'd recommend pure
MySQL FTS (either InnoDB or MyISAM), and not Sphinx, as there are a
large number of caveats with the Sphinx search (no-result responses and
false negatives, primarily). Interestingly the performance of InnoDB
FTS is slower than MyISAM's: https://chmrr.net/fts-charts/query.html
> I'd prefer to use MySQL, since that seems to support FTS by itself.
> Otherwise, I opt for MariaDB, simply because that has the Sphinx
> engine built-in to the RPM I can get (saving me the hassle of
> build-from-source) although I'd still have to separately maintain the
> actual Sphinx/searchd daemon package.
> Also, when running rt-fulltext-indexer for MySQL the notes say it
> does 200 tickets at a time. I take it the script remembers the last
> ticket it did, and continues where it left off? Does running this
> place any locks on any tables/rows, or can it be run at any time?
It indexes in batches, based on the high-water-mark of the last
successfully index attachment. It does not use database-level
locking, instead using taking a lock on the indexer script itself;
there is no impact on availability of RT for other operations. It can be
canceled and resumed at will.
> And to be clear, for Sphinx, the rt-setup-fulltext-indexer & indexer
> rt is a one-time thing, and subsequent is simply indexer rt
> --rotate? And similarly, running indexer rt --rotate can be done at
> any time even while RT is being used?
Yes -- however, `indexer rt` re-indexes _all_ attachments, since Sphinx
does not support incremental indexes. As such, having close-to-live
FTS indexes with Sphinx requires either a small database, or a main +
delta technique -- see
for an example of such.
> Oh, I do intend to "DontSearchFileATtachments = true", although we
> might try it undef for a while, and see.
As a note, DontSearchFileAttachments is respected on search, not on
index, so it won't impact indexing time.
More information about the rt-users