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 1C2729DD558 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 14:28:49 -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 59720-07 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 14:28:48 -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 6D5AD9DCD1C for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 14:28:45 -0400 (AST) Received: by floppy.pyrenet.fr (Postfix, from userid 106) id 0C3063093F; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 19:28:44 +0100 (MET) From: Michael Riess X-Newsgroups: pgsql.performance Subject: Re: TSearch2 vs. Apache Lucene Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:28:44 +0100 Organization: Hub.Org Networking Services Lines: 29 Message-ID: References: <200512061727.jB6HRVN18473@candle.pha.pa.us> 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: <200512061727.jB6HRVN18473@candle.pha.pa.us> 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: 200512/179 X-Sequence-Number: 16000 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.