MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <164978902252.1276550.9330175733459697101@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <CAH2-Wz=+5kzq8A6Uo_t7F0URwztb74-O+UuFcAh1iixTME-WXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <911427.1649792973@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAH2-Wzm-YYq2f1Hy7HoazKmC6co3YmYKArN1civ20PnCSVHpBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <915352.1649795327@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <915352.1649795327@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 14:34:01 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAH2-WzkjN2aYQJddOSPZ-KC894QahxpzJWSe4HLtz0U0gGpQeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: "GIN and GiST Index Types" page is about usage in full text
 search, but looks general purpose
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: piotrowski@prisma.io, Pg Docs <pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org>,
	"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAH2-WzkjN2aYQJddOSPZ-KC894QahxpzJWSe4HLtz0U0gGpQeQ%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 1:28 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Proposed patch attached.  The existing text already says "GIN indexes are
> the preferred text search index type", so I'm not sure we need to go
> further than that about guiding people which one to use.  In particular,
> since GIN can't support included columns, we can't really deprecate GiST
> altogether here.

LGTM.

> > There is always the extreme option of excluding older versions in
> > robots.txt. I bet that would work.
>
> Yeah, I was wondering about that too.  It's sort of the nuclear option,
> but if we don't want to modify EOL'd versions then we may not have any
> other way to keep Google from glomming onto them.

I think that our recent decision to just live with the downsides that
go with making the most recent stable release docs canonical was a
wise one, on balance. The reality is that we have very few ways of
influencing search results from Google.

I don't know enough about the topic to be able to claim that the
robots.txt solution would also work out well, in about the same way.
But I suspect that it might, and know that it's a reversible process.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan