Subject: Re: Rethinking our fulltext phrase-search implementation
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
References: <28215.1481999808@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Artur Zakirov <a.zakirov@postgrespro.ru>
Message-ID: <773bb687-1388-6c78-af23-5635a41a243d@postgrespro.ru>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 15:34:12 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <28215.1481999808@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Hello Tom,

On 17.12.2016 21:36, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> 4. The transformations are wrong anyway.  The OR case I showed above is
> all right, but as I argued in <24331.1480199636@sss.pgh.pa.us>, the AND
> case is not:
>
> regression=# select 'a <-> (b & c)'::tsquery;
>           tsquery
> ---------------------------
>  'a' <-> 'b' & 'a' <-> 'c'
> (1 row)
>
> This matches 'a b a c', because 'a <-> b' and 'a <-> c' can each be
> matched at different places in that text; but it seems highly unlikely to
> me that that's what the writer of such a query wanted.  (If she did want
> that, she would write it that way to start with.)  NOT is not very nice
> either:

If I'm not mistaken PostgreSQL 9.6 and master with patch 
"fix-phrase-search.patch" return false for the query:

select 'a b a c' @@ 'a <-> (b & c)'::tsquery;
  ?column?
----------
  f
(1 row)

I agree that such query is confusing. Maybe it is better to return true 
for such queries?
Otherwise it seems that queries like 'a <-> (b & c)' will always return 
false. Then we need maybe some warning message.

-- 
Artur Zakirov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers