From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Cc: Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] tsearch vs. fulltextindex
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 00:42:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <200208140442.g7E4gmH28658@candle.pha.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOIELACDAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Good point. Some said fulltextindex was better for certain queries, but
if no one can come up with such a case, we can remove it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've just done some performance comparisons between contrib/fulltextindex
> and contrib/tsearch. Even with every optimisation I can think of for
> fulltextindex, tsearch is 300 times faster ;)
>
> Plus it doesn't require a separate table or complicated queries.
>
> I think we should strongly encourage people to use tsearch instead of
> fulltextindex. I hope to commit some change to fulltextindex in the near
> future, so I'll add a note to the readme then.
>
> Chris
>
> eg:
>
> australia=# explain analyse select food_id, category_id, description from
> test_foods where not pending and fulltextidx ## 'baskin&fruit';
> NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
>
> Index Scan using fulltextidx_idx on test_foods (cost=0.00..45.93 rows=11
> width=40) (actual time=0.22..1.53 rows=8 loops=1)
> Total runtime: 1.70 msec
>
> EXPLAIN
> australia=# explain analyze SELECT distinct(f.food_id), f.category_id,
> f.description, f.brand FROM food_foods f, food_foods_fti f0, food_foods_fti
> f1 WHERE NOT f.pending AND f0.id=f.oid AND f0.string ~ '^baskin' AND
> f1.id=f.oid AND f1.string ~ '^fruit';
> NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
>
> Unique (cost=12.10..12.11 rows=1 width=66) (actual time=532.11..532.25
> rows=8 loops=1)
> -> Sort (cost=12.10..12.10 rows=1 width=66) (actual time=532.10..532.14
> rows=8 loops=1)
> -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..12.09 rows=1 width=66) (actual
> time=292.41..531.89 rows=8 loops=1)
> -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..6.07 rows=1 width=8) (actual
> time=292.35..531.35 rows=8 loops=1)
> -> Index Scan using food_foods_fti_string_idx on
> food_foods_fti f0 (cost=0.00..3.03 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.07..0.45
> rows=23 loops=1)
> -> Index Scan using food_foods_fti_string_idx on
> food_foods_fti f1 (cost=0.00..3.03 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.04..16.52
> rows=1092 loops=23)
> -> Index Scan using food_foods_oid_idx on food_foods f
> (cost=0.00..6.01 rows=1 width=58) (actual time=0.03..0.04 rows=1 loops=8)
> Total runtime: 532.49 msec
>
> EXPLAIN
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: 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
>
--
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
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: pgman@candle.pha.pa.us, chriskl@familyhealth.com.au, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] tsearch vs. fulltextindex
In-Reply-To: <200208140442.g7E4gmH28658@candle.pha.pa.us>
* 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