X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53BF79DD44E for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 14:32:57 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 61365-03 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 14:32:56 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (candle.pha.pa.us [64.139.89.126]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE07B9DCF7E for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 14:32:54 -0400 (AST) Received: (from pgman@localhost) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.11.6) id jB6IWsX26488; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 13:32:54 -0500 (EST) From: Bruce Momjian Message-Id: <200512061832.jB6IWsX26488@candle.pha.pa.us> Subject: Re: TSearch2 vs. Apache Lucene In-Reply-To: To: Michael Riess Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 13:32:54 -0500 (EST) CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.011 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011] X-Spam-Score: 0.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/180 X-Sequence-Number: 16001 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