From: Michael Riess <mlriess@gmx.de>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: TSearch2 vs. Apache Lucene
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 09:28:52 +0100
Message-ID: <dn66fv$1ib9$1@news.hub.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43969B31.5070904@familyhealth.com.au>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0512061143170.5133@localhost.localdomain>
<dn4g10$2n6b$1@news.hub.org>
<43963D9B.4020605@familyhealth.com.au>
<dn64it$17bk$1@news.hub.org>
<43969B31.5070904@familyhealth.com.au>
Christopher Kings-Lynne schrieb:
>> No, my problem is that using TSearch2 interferes with other core
>> components of postgres like (auto)vacuum or dump/restore.
>
> That's nonsense...seriously.
>
> The only trick with dump/restore is that you have to install the
> tsearch2 shared library before restoring. That's the same as all
> contribs though.
Well, then it changed since I last read the documentation. That was
about a year ago, and since then we are using Lucene ... and as it works
quite nicely, I see no reason to switch to TSearch2. Including it with
the pgsql core would make it much more attractive to me, as it seems to
me that once included into the core, features seem to be more stable.
Call me paranoid, if you must ... ;-)
>
> Chris
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> match
>
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: <dn66fv$1ib9$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