Subject: Re: Tsearch docs question
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <24984.1193426786@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <1193423136.7624.56.camel@dogma.ljc.laika.com>
	<24984.1193426786@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:14:08 -0700
Message-Id: <1193433248.7624.88.camel@dogma.ljc.laika.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 15:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Are you looking at CVS HEAD, or what was there in beta1?  I rewrote
> that stuff a few days ago:
> http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/textsearch-indexes.html
> 

Excellent, thanks, that's a big improvement to those docs all around. I
should have checked the latest before posting, almost everything I
mentioned was already addressed.

There's still one very minor thing:

"A GiST index is lossy, meaning it is necessary to check the actual
table row to eliminate false matches."

could be changed to something like:

"A GiST index is lossy, meaning that the index may produce false
matches, and it is necessary to check the actual table row before
eliminating these false matches.

And perhaps change:

"Lossiness causes performance degradation since random access to table
records is slow; ..."

to something like:

"Lossiness causes performance degradation due to unnecessary random
accesses to table records; ..."

The only reason I say this is because, on my first reading, I read that
to mean that lossless indexes don't require trips to the heap at all
(which isn't true, yet).

Regards,
	Jeff Davis