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 7337E9DCAEF for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 12:59:35 -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 43894-03 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 12:59:34 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from floppy.pyrenet.fr (news.pyrenet.fr [194.116.145.2]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0099C9DCAAF for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 12:59:32 -0400 (AST) Received: by floppy.pyrenet.fr (Postfix, from userid 106) id A6FDA308DA; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 17:59:32 +0100 (MET) From: Michael Riess X-Newsgroups: pgsql.performance Subject: Re: TSearch2 vs. Apache Lucene Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 17:59:14 +0100 Organization: Hub.Org Networking Services Lines: 10 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051025) In-Reply-To: To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none] X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/172 X-Sequence-Number: 15993 > Has anyone ever compared TSearch2 to Lucene, as far as performance is > concerned? I'll stay away from TSearch2 until it is fully integrated in the postgres core (like "create index foo_text on foo (texta, textb) USING TSearch2"). Because a full integration is unlikely to happen in the near future (as far as I know), I'll stick to Lucene. Mike