From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: Michael Riess <mlriess@gmx.de>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: TSearch2 vs. Apache Lucene
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 13:32:54 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <200512061832.jB6IWsX26488@candle.pha.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dn4l8n$su5$1@news.hub.org>
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 Lucene. But, if
> >> you could live without that features and need to search read only
> >> archives you need Lucene.
> >>
> >> Tsearch2 integration into pgsql would be cool, but, I see no problem to
> >> use tsearch2 as an official extension module. After completing our
> >> todo, which we hope will likely happens for 8.2 release, you could
> >> forget about Lucene and other engines :) We'll be available for developing
> >> in spring and we estimate about three months for our todo, so, it's
> >> really doable.
> >
> > Agreed. There isn't anything magical about a plug-in vs something
> > integrated, as least in PostgreSQL. In other database, plug-ins can't
> > fully function as integrated, but in PostgreSQL, everything is really a
> > plug-in because it is all abstracted.
>
>
> I only remember evaluating TSearch2 about a year ago, and when I read
> statements like "Vacuum and/or database dump/restore work differently
> when using TSearch2, sql scripts need to be executed etc." I knew that I
> would not want to go there.
>
> But I don't doubt that it works, and that it is a sane concept.
Good point. I think we had some problems at that point because the API
was improved between versions. Even if it had been integrated, we might
have had the same problem.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: pgman@candle.pha.pa.us, mlriess@gmx.de
Subject: Re: TSearch2 vs. Apache Lucene
In-Reply-To: <200512061832.jB6IWsX26488@candle.pha.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox