X-Original-To: pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92BA09FA2C3 for ; Thu, 11 May 2006 15:10:34 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 47418-09 for ; Thu, 11 May 2006 15:10:25 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.85]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB5FB9FA19B for ; Thu, 11 May 2006 15:10:25 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mailgate.vale-housing.co.uk ([194.217.48.34] helo=vale-housing.co.uk) by anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1FeFcG-0009jM-Ga for pgsql-www@postgresql.org; Thu, 11 May 2006 18:10:24 +0000 Received: from 192.168.1.106 ([192.168.1.106]) by ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk ([192.168.1.106]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 11 May 2006 18:10:24 +0000 From: "Dave Page" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Search thoughts Message-ID: <000f01c67526$2c662ab3$6a01a8c0@valehousing.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 19:10:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 thread-topic: [pgsql-www] Search thoughts thread-index: AcZ1Go0hQqpa+O/QRuiD7LY544/e2gAC59HU X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.404 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, MSGID_DOLLARS, RATWARE_MS_HASH, RATWARE_OUTLOOK_NONAME X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200605/48 X-Sequence-Number: 10011 -----Original Message----- From: "Joshua D. Drake" Sent: 11/05/06 17:47:12 To: "Joshua D. Drake" Cc: "PostgreSQL WWW" Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Search thoughts > Reposting because I realize that everyone was in bed or heading home=20 > when this came through: Huh? Your email vanishes if you aren't there to read it as soon as it = arrives? :-) And, no, I don't mind if you wanna tweak the weights. /D -----Unmodified Original Message----- Reposting because I realize that everyone was in bed or heading home=20 when this came through: Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Hello, >=20 > I have been doing some example searching with our search engine and = was=20 > wondering if we can adjust the weights a little differently. For = example: >=20 > ALTER TABLE, first link is: >=20 > = http://www.postgresql.org/files/documentation/books/aw_pgsql/node203.html= >=20 > Which although accurate is way out dated. It seems we should weight a=20 > docs search higher with the current docs having the most weight? >=20 > The same happens with many of the commands such as CREATE INDEX... >=20 > Joshua D. Drake >=20 --=20 =3D=3D=3D The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. = =3D=3D=3D Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ ---------------------------(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