GrabPERF: Search Index Weekly Results (Sep 12-18, 2005)

The weekly GrabPERF Search Index Results are in.
This Week’s Notes

  1. ERTW.com Agent location taken offline
  2. Addition of Google Blogsearch to the Index
  3. Numerous performance improvements to the GrabPERF interface

Week of September 12-18, 2005

TEST                           RESULT  SUCCESS  ATTEMPTS
--------------------------  ---------  -------  --------
PubSub - Search             0.2688096    99.82      6532
Google - Search             0.4013164    99.97      6532
Google Blogsearch - Search  0.5818507    98.60      4214
MSN - Search                0.6981630    99.83      6532
Yahoo - Search              0.7159974    99.95      6527
eBay - Search               0.8345692   100.00      6528
BlogLines - Search          1.0204595    99.95      6531
BestBuy.com - Search        1.1687228    99.97      6530
Feedster - Search           1.3112797    99.82      6531
Technorati - Search         1.3240335    99.95      6528
Amazon - Search             1.5195445    99.72      2481
Newsgator - Search          1.5823492    99.72      6529
Blogdigger - Search         1.7142475    99.97      6506
BENCHMARK RESULTS           2.0313721    99.50     76849
IceRocket - Search          4.2792600    98.79      6515
Blogpulse - Search          6.5226776    99.29      6522

These results are based on data gathered from two remote measurement locations in North America. Each location takes a measurement approximately once every five minutes.
The measurements are for the base HTML document only. No images or referenced files are included.


Technorati: , , , , ,
IceRocket: , , , , ,

4 Replies to “GrabPERF: Search Index Weekly Results (Sep 12-18, 2005)”

  1. I’m a little surprised to see that the Google Blogsearch numbers aren’t better than they are. The site certainly feels much snappier than the numbers would indicate.
    I’d like to suggest that you include a second test for Google BlogSearch to make the comparison to PubSub a bit more fair. What you’re retrieving from PubSub is an Atom feed, not a full HTML page. Typically, HTML pages can be filled with all sorts of junk that isn’t present in Atom feeds. Thus, the Google BlogSearch numbers may be getting dragged down by them having to transfer more data or do more formatting of the output. So, what I’d like to suggest is that you include a second “Atom” search test for Google BS that would look like this:
    http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch_feeds?scoring=d&q=“new+york”&num=32&output=atom
    Since PubSub always returns 32 results (if present) it makes sense to adjust the Google BlogSearch item “num” to be 32. Admittedly, there would still be a difference between PubSub and Google BlogSearch since GoogleBS only returns summaries while PubSub returns full posts. However, this difference in payload size might get lost in the wash.
    bob wyman

  2. Ok the test is added.
    However, PubSub will still come up on top; Google doesn’t bother to compress their ATOM feeds.
    Ouch!
    smp

  3. I’d like to suggest that you include a second test for Google BlogSearch to make the comparison to PubSub a bit more fair. What you’re retrieving from PubSub is an Atom feed, not a full HTML page. Typically, HTML pages can be filled with all sorts of junk that isn’t present in Atom feeds. Thus, the Google BlogSearch numbers may be getting dragged down by them having to transfer more data or do more formatting of the output. So, what I’d like to suggest is that you include a second “Atom” search test for Google BS that would look like this:http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch_feeds?s…>Since PubSub always returns 32 results (if present) it makes sense to adjust the Google BlogSearch item “num” to be 32. Admittedly, there would still be a difference between PubSub and Google BlogSearch since GoogleBS only returns summaries while PubSub returns full posts. However, this difference in payload size might get lost in the wash.bob wyman

  4. However, PubSub will still come up on top; Google doesn’t bother to compress their ATOM feeds.Ouch!smp

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *