SKA news

[Fungus]

I take it no answer to my specific question about your biggest database? Nothing to brag about? I thought so!

Mine is bigger than yours. And faster. Naaah nah nah naaah nah.

[bogeyman]

Yes it does matter - it shows level of complexity of the problem at hand.

No. Rows are rows are rows. Simple records.

There is no complexity in the number of rows, only volume, and processing overhead.

INDEXES are what matter AtW.

Tell me again. What DBMS does Google use, or MSN, or Yahoo, or Altavista, or (insert name of favourite SE here)?

Answer: NONE!

They almost all use inverted bitmap index b-trees.

What are they I hear you ask? You donkey!

[AtW]

ATW: It pays to listen to others. Who cares how fast your search is? If a search takes 5 seconds or 0.005 seconds, I don't give a XXXX.

People got used to fast Google searches - their expectations are very high as far as searching is concerned. There are etailers who have already acceptable search speed - they have to, but you are ignoring the fact how its achieved - their implementations are by far less efficient than mine, so even if their current search is fast enough it means that by using my software (when its ready for licensing) they can use 5-10 times less hardware to do the same. And get better relevance in searches, that's big bucks saved.

Do you know what was the quoted price for one search engine for my ex-ex-employer who were etailer? The cost was like £100k, I kid you not! Enterprise search market is not actually cheap, look at Google mini-appliance, it costs £2,000, but it is limited to 200,000 documents.

[AtW]

They almost all use inverted bitmap index b-trees.

It is clear from me actually implementing big search engine that I have far more knowledge about their inner workerings. From that experience and from lack of it in you I deduced that you are clueless about such things and the above quote only proves it.

Neither me nor Google, MSN or Yahoo use b-trees. This data structure is not suitable for task of WWW searches.

[AtW]

If I told you I designed the BT/CSS database for itemised telephone billing in 1983 would that impress you?

So, you were working in IT in 1983. This was the time of opptunity - the field was unexplorer so it was fairly easy to achieve huge success, like VisiCals or Apple or Microsoft.

What have you been doing that time? You are still nobody just like you were 25 years ago, how come you squandered an oppotunity of lifetime?

And I tell you how - you had that crap attitude you do have, that's why you wasted you chance to actually do something many people will remember you for, and now the best you can do are cheap shots on this BBS.

You are below contemp bogey.

[bogeyman]

It is clear from me actually implementing big search engine that I have far more knowledge about their inner workerings. From that experience and from lack of it in you I deduced that you are clueless about such things and the above quote only proves it.

Neither me nor Google, MSN or Yahoo use b-trees. This data structure is not suitable for task of WWW searches.

INVERTED b-trees (or variants thereof)!

God! i thought I'd met some arrogant little ****** in my time, but you take the ******* cake!

I wish you well in your venture to be the next Google.

Difference is, the Google guys were humble, listened to people in the market and in the industry, and bided their time.

You, on the other hand, are a bombastic ***** of the first order, who thinks he knows it all and has nothing to learn from many of the knowledgeable people on this forum.

Good luck and good bye!

[AtW]

You, on the other hand, are a bombastic ***** of the first order, who thinks he knows it all and has nothing to learn from many of the knowledgeable people on this forum.

There is nothing to learn from you apart from doing all humanly possible not to become someone like you.

A number of knowledgeable people from this forum did post good suggestions and ideas that were much appreciated.

[Fungus]

People got used to fast Google searches - their expectations are very high as far as searching is concerned.

Nonsense. Google's success is nothing whatsoever to do with speed. The success is down to several factors:

1) It's free to the searcher.
2) The results are sensibly ordered, with the potentially most useful first. One criteria in the ranking is the number of links to a given page/site. Lots of links probably means good quality.
3) They have a large database, updated continuously.
4) They have a business model that works i.e. generating revenue from advertising but without alientating users.

Fungus

[AtW]

Nonsense. Google's success is nothing whatsoever to do with speed. The success is down to several factors:

This is not true. I started using Google in 2001 - well before they became mainstream.

They got lots of following because of a number of innovations that they had comparing to other search engines:

1) searches were very fast - always
2) relevant results due to anchor hits taken into account (I do it too) and using rank of pages importantce based on links (will add it this month)
3) clean layout - no junk around

They also added two more little thought about innovations:

1) text snippets quickly pre-viewing content of matches on the page
2) max pages per site limit

[bogeyman]

Dreamer...

http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Sup...p/Dreamer.html