Sushant Sinha writes:
> I think there is a need to provide prefix search to bypass
> dictionaries.If you folks think that there is some credibility to such a
> need then I can think about implementing it. How about an operator like
> ":#" that does this? The ":*" will continue to mean the same as
I think there is a need to provide prefix search to bypass
dictionaries.If you folks think that there is some credibility to such a
need then I can think about implementing it. How about an operator like
":#" that does this? The ":*" will continue to mean the same as
currently.
-Sushant.
On Tue,
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 19:27 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
> Assume, for example, that the postgres mailing list archive search used
> tsearch (which I think it does, but I'm not sure). It'd then probably make
> sense to add "postgres" to the list of stopwords, because it's bound to
> appear in near
On Oct25, 2011, at 18:47 , Sushant Sinha wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 18:05 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
>> On Oct25, 2011, at 17:26 , Sushant Sinha wrote:
>>> I am currently using the prefix search feature in text search. I find
>>> that the prefix characters are treated the same as a normal lexe
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 18:05 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
> On Oct25, 2011, at 17:26 , Sushant Sinha wrote:
> > I am currently using the prefix search feature in text search. I find
> > that the prefix characters are treated the same as a normal lexeme and
> > passed through stemming and stopword dic
On Oct25, 2011, at 17:26 , Sushant Sinha wrote:
> I am currently using the prefix search feature in text search. I find
> that the prefix characters are treated the same as a normal lexeme and
> passed through stemming and stopword dictionaries. This seems like a bug
> to me.
Hm, I don't think so.
