X-Original-To: pgsql-www-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E89AF9FA4E3 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 23:13:36 -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 13932-07 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 23:13:31 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from lists.commandprompt.com (host-130.commandprompt.net [207.173.203.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A2509FA4D1 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 23:13:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.50] (or-67-76-146-141.sta.embarqhsd.net [67.76.146.141]) (authenticated bits=0) by lists.commandprompt.com (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7T2DQIL022734 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:13:27 -0700 Message-ID: <44F3A2CB.4050105@commandprompt.com> Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:13:31 -0700 From: "Joshua D. Drake" Organization: Command Prompt, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Lane CC: Bruce Momjian , aklaver@comcast.net, pgsql-www@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Search out of sync References: <200608290010.k7T0A4d01908@momjian.us> <44F38FF5.6060409@commandprompt.com> <22751.1156817302@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <22751.1156817302@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88.3, clamav-milter version 0.88.3 on projects.commandprompt.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Sender succeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.6 (lists.commandprompt.com [192.168.2.159]); Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:13:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.206 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200608/146 X-Sequence-Number: 10537 Tom Lane wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" writes: >> Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> I just tested "index bloat" and I can confirm that the second returned >>> result is incorrect if you click on it. Is anyone addressing this? > >> No. > > Why not? The search index needs to be rebuilt following Marc's > re-reconstruction of the archives. It didn't take too long to do > it after the first reconstruction, what's the holdup this time? I have restarted the search engine daemons. The hold up is simple: 1. Our search sucks. 2. I have zero idea how our search works beyond stop/start 3. Our search sucks. Joshua D. Drake > > regards, tom lane > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/