Christopher Kings-Lynne schrieb:
No, my problem is that using TSearch2 interferes with other core
components of postgres like (auto)vacuum or dump/restore.
That's nonsense...seriously.
The only trick with dump/restore is that you have to install the
tsearch2 shared library before restoring.
No, my problem is that using TSearch2 interferes with other core
components of postgres like (auto)vacuum or dump/restore.
That's nonsense...seriously.
The only trick with dump/restore is that you have to install the
tsearch2 shared library before restoring. That's the same as all
contribs t
No, my problem is that using TSearch2 interferes with other core
components of postgres like (auto)vacuum or dump/restore.
...
So you'll avoid a non-core product and instead only use another non-core
product...?
Chris
Michael Riess wrote:
Has anyone ever compared TSearch2 to Lucene, as
...
So you'll avoid a non-core product and instead only use another non-core
product...?
Chris
Michael Riess wrote:
Has anyone ever compared TSearch2 to Lucene, as far as performance is
concerned?
I'll stay away from TSearch2 until it is fully integrated in the
postgres core (like "cre
On 6 Dec 2005, at 16:47, Joshua Kramer wrote:
Has anyone ever compared TSearch2 to Lucene, as far as performance
is concerned?
In our experience (small often-updated documents) Lucene leaves
tsearch2 in the dust. This probably has a lot to do with our usage
pattern though. For our usage it
Michael Riess wrote:
> Bruce Momjian schrieb:
> > Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >> tsearch2 and Lucene are very different search engines, so it'd be unfair
> >> comparison. If you need full access to metadata and instant indexing
> >> you, probably, find tsearch2 is more suitable then Luc
Bruce Momjian schrieb:
Oleg Bartunov wrote:
Folks,
tsearch2 and Lucene are very different search engines, so it'd be unfair
comparison. If you need full access to metadata and instant indexing
you, probably, find tsearch2 is more suitable then Lucene. But, if
you could live without that featur
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Oleg Bartunov wrote:
>> Tsearch2 integration into pgsql would be cool, but, I see no problem to
>> use tsearch2 as an official extension module.
> Agreed. There isn't anything magical about a plug-in vs something
> integrated, as least in PostgreSQL.
The quality gap bet
Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> Folks,
>
> tsearch2 and Lucene are very different search engines, so it'd be unfair
> comparison. If you need full access to metadata and instant indexing
> you, probably, find tsearch2 is more suitable then Lucene. But, if
> you could live without that features and need to
Folks,
tsearch2 and Lucene are very different search engines, so it'd be unfair
comparison. If you need full access to metadata and instant indexing
you, probably, find tsearch2 is more suitable then Lucene. But, if
you could live without that features and need to search read only
archives you
Has anyone ever compared TSearch2 to Lucene, as far as performance is
concerned?
I'll stay away from TSearch2 until it is fully integrated in the
postgres core (like "create index foo_text on foo (texta, textb) USING
TSearch2"). Because a full integration is unlikely to happen in the near
f
11 matches
Mail list logo
