From: "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>
To: PgSQL Performance ML <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>,
	pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 21:49:15 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [SQL] EXTERNAL storage and substring on long strings
Reply-To: shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in
Message-ID: <3F2ED4DB.30291.5A1A19@localhost>
In-reply-to: <1060013646.1434.40.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <200308041655.48151.dev@archonet.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-description: Mail message body

On 4 Aug 2003 at 12:14, Scott Cain wrote:
> I forgot about searching--I suspect that application is why I faced
> opposition for shredding in my schema development group.  Maybe I should
> push that off to the file system and use grep (or BLAST).  Otherwise, I
> could write a function that would search the chunks first, then after
> failing to find the substring in those, I could start sewing the chunks
> together to look for the query string.  That could get ugly (and
> slow--but if the user knows that and expects it to be slow, I'm ok with
> that).

I assume your DNA sequence is compacted. Your best bet would be to fetch them 
from database and run blast on them in client memory. No point duplicating 
blast functionality. Last I tried it beat every technique of text searching 
when heuristics are involved.

Bye
 Shridhar

--
There are two types of Linux developers - those who can spell, andthose who 
can't. There is a constant pitched battle between the two.(From one of the post-
1.1.54 kernel update messages posted to c.o.l.a)