Hello Michael, Looks like I've overlooked this email back then. :( Peter pinged me about Sphinx vs Maria status recently and I just found it. Well, hopefully better late than never! Sunday, June 7, 2009, 1:18:30 PM, you wrote: MW> Andrew, what are the possible drawbacks you can see with having MW> Sphinx to be a part of MairaDB for a user that is not using Sphinx? Can't think of any. SphinxSE is a mere client and as such does not allocate any big RAM buffers or other resources. MW> I assume that if Sphinx is not enabled, it will not take any MW> resources. MW> If Sphinx is enabled but not used, what are the resorces it would use? Pretty much none, AFAIK. --- On an unrelated note, we're working on so called RT backend here, and it will allow all the normal CRUD operations in run time (as opposed to only having reads against a static fulltext index that we have now). When it's done it'll be also technically possible to integrate it too - and do so tighter by embedding the library instead of just talking to Sphinx searchd over network. Sphinx searchd can now talk MySQL protocol and supports basic SQL syntax. So for "just" full text tasks end users don't really need the integrated version. However it still might possibly be useful in certain use cases. To keep FT index in (better) sync with DB data, avoid overheads of double network roundtrips for additional processing, avoid hassles of keeping two connections and manually managing two open transactions, etc. So I wonder what'd be your opinion about the integration - whether it seems useful at all, and if yes, whether network client or embedded library route seems better. -- Best regards, Andrew mailto:shodan@shodan.ru