Tom Lane wrote:
Teodor Sigaev <teo...@sigaev.ru> writes:
So I think there's a reasonable case for decreeing that <N> should only
match lexemes *exactly* N apart. If we did that, we would no longer have
the misbehavior that Jean-Pierre is complaining about, and we'd not need
to argue about whether <0> needs to be treated specially.
Agree, seems that's easy to change.
...
Patch is attached
Hmm, couldn't the loop logic be simplified a great deal if this is the
definition? Or are you leaving it like that with the idea that we might
later introduce another operator with the less-than-or-equal behavior?
Do you suggest something like merge join of two sorted lists? ie:
while(Rpos < Rdata.pos + Rdata.npos && Lpos < Ldata.pos + Ldata.npos)
{
if (*Lpos > *Rpos)
Rpos++;
else if (*Lpos < *Rpos)
{
if (*Rpos - *Lpos == distance)
match!
Lpos++;
}
else
{
if (distance == 0)
match!
Lpos++; Rpos++;
}
}
Such algorithm finds closest pair of (Lpos, Rpos) but satisfying pair could be
not closest, example: to_tsvector('simple', '1 2 1 2') @@ '1 <3> 2';
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teo...@sigaev.ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
