You might have come across discussions or blog posts suggesting that PostgreSQL's built-in full-text search (FTS) struggles with performance compared to dedicated search engines or specialized extensions. A notable recent example comes from Neon's blog post, "Performance Benchmark: pg_search on Neon" (link).
In their benchmark, Neon compared query performance on their database platform with their
pg_search
extension (based on Rust's Tantivy library viapgrx
) against the Postgres built-in fulltext search setting with tsvector and GIN index. They commendably stated they optimized this standard setup by adding GIN indexes where appropriate (benchmark code available here).However, while adding GIN indexes is a necessary first step, their results showing significantly slower performance for the "standard" setup suggest crucial additional optimization steps for PostgreSQL FTS were likely missed. The conclusion that standard FTS is inherently much slower than
pg_search
might be based on an unintentionally handicapped baseline.Let's dive into how to correctly set up and use standard PostgreSQL FTS for optimal performance, addressing the specific configuration flaws likely present in the baseline used in the Neon benchmark, and demonstrating the true speed of built-in FTS. We'll show concrete numbers demonstrating a ~50x performance increase just by applying these standard optimizations to the baseline configuration.
continue reading on blog.vectorchord.ai
⚠️ This post links to an external website. ⚠️
If this post was enjoyable or useful for you, please share it! If you have comments, questions, or feedback, you can email my personal email. To get new posts, subscribe use the RSS feed.