From: Michael Riess <mlriess@gmx.de>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: TSearch2 vs. Apache Lucene
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 08:56:18 +0100
Message-ID: <dn64it$17bk$1@news.hub.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43963D9B.4020605@familyhealth.com.au>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0512061143170.5133@localhost.localdomain>
<dn4g10$2n6b$1@news.hub.org>
<43963D9B.4020605@familyhealth.com.au>
No, my problem is that using TSearch2 interferes with other core
components of postgres like (auto)vacuum or dump/restore.
> ...
>
> So you'll avoid a non-core product and instead only use another non-core
> product...?
>
> Chris
>
> Michael Riess wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
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: mlriess@gmx.de
Subject: Re: TSearch2 vs. Apache Lucene
In-Reply-To: <dn64it$17bk$1@news.hub.org>
* 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