Architecture Case Study
Options Considered
Viable search approaches, trade-offs and the factors behind the selected architecture.
Continue browser-side filtering
Strengths
- minimal platform change;
- familiar implementation model;
- no additional runtime service.
Limitations
- retains coupling between data, search logic and presentation;
- pushes more processing and data movement to the browser;
- becomes harder to evolve as catalogue size and facets increase.
This did not address the underlying separation-of-responsibility problem.
Managed search service
A managed search platform such as Algolia provides a mature hosted capability and reduces infrastructure ownership.
Strengths
- managed availability and operations;
- mature search capabilities;
- reduced platform administration.
Limitations
- commercial model and feature set exceeded what was required to establish the target capability;
- less control over the hosting model.
It remained a credible alternative where managed-service priorities outweigh self-hosting considerations.
Self-hosted search platforms
Typesense and Meilisearch represented the strongest fit for a lightweight dedicated search layer.
Both support the core pattern: indexed documents, faceting, filtering and typo-tolerant search.
Meilisearch was selected because its API model, operational simplicity and indexing approach fitted the required search architecture well.
Decision
The important architecture decision was not simply which product to use.
It was to adopt:
a dedicated, independently operated search capability between source data and Webflow.
Meilisearch was the selected implementation of that architecture.