Andrew Snow wrote:
> > So we were advised to use "fulltextindex".- chunk
> > this fields on single words and make new table with words and oids in
> > it. After we made this table its size was 2940360 records. And I tried
> > to measure the time:
> >
> >
> >
> > select f1.id from app_fti f1
On Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 12:00:31PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Mercer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > it appears that each call to UPDATE seems to be taking a long, long time to
> > complete.
>
> Poor choice of plan, maybe? What does EXPLAIN say about how a typical
> example of the UPDATE will
>
> Thank you gentelmen! It seems that regexp was the reason! I enabled
> likeplanning and it i=didn't improve the performance until I replaced '~*' with
> 'LIKE'. Thank you again!
The issue is that ~ and LIKE have similar performance. ~* is
case-insensitive, and can not used indexes.
This looks scary to me:
> CREATE FUNCTION names_trig() RETURNS OPAQUE AS '
> DECLARE
> rec names%ROWTYPE;
> BEGIN
> IF TG_OP = ''INSERT'' THEN
> SELECT * INTO rec FROM names WHERE name = NEW.name;
> IF FOUND THEN
> UPDATE n
Hallo,
My name is Vassili Akimov. I work with postgres, we maintain the main
database for our sponsors on it. One of thier requirements,- perform the
search through the long text field. Sometimes this field even exceeds
32k so we cut off the rest. But search trough this long field is too
slow. (
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq-english.html#4.23 Is this a leftover
> from previous versions of postgres or is this still true for 7.0?
>
Still true in 7.0.
--
Bruce Momjian| http://www.op.net/~candle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000
+ If
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq-english.html#4.23 Is this a leftover
> > from previous versions of postgres or is this still true for 7.0?
> >
>
> Still true in 7.0.
Gee. Shouldn't 4.24 use the advice above in 4.23?
I.E., shouldn't it read:
SELECT tab1.col1, tab
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq-english.html#4.23 Is this a leftover
> > > from previous versions of postgres or is this still true for 7.0?
> > >
> >
> > Still true in 7.0.
>
> Gee. Shouldn't 4.24 use the advice above in 4.23?
>
> I.E., shouldn't it read:
