| From: | Uros Gruber <uros(at)sir-mag(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: tsearch comments |
| Date: | 2003-01-28 16:35:08 |
| Message-ID: | 13034962453.20030128173508@sir-mag.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Hi!
I think that this would be nice. OpenFTS is great, but i would
be great if this would be implement in real pg functions.
I think that indexim would be great if pg make it by itself.
Also it could be great if we could define order of weight of
columns.
bye Uros
I
On 28.01.2003 at 11:53:26, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>
wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 sector119(at)mail(dot)ru wrote:
>
> > HI
> >
> > will we see sort by relevance at tsearch alpha version? :)
> >
>
> not sure. We concentrate our efforts, well, Teodor is working
> on
> better configurability of tsearch like OpenFTS does.
>
> It\\\'s not difficult to add rather naive relevance based on
> position
> of lexem in document, for example. The question is do you
like
> such
> kind of relevancy ? Real ranking support (as in OpenFTS)
> require
> separate tables to maintain coordinate information.
> We want to keep tsearch as simple as it\\\'s and now we just
add
> better and friendly configurability. Do we need complicate
> tsearch ?
> We already have OpenFTS which has most features people
> requested.
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jhihn1 | 2003-01-28 16:38:43 | Re: Using RSYNC for replication? |
| Previous Message | Jim Buttafuoco | 2003-01-28 16:34:19 | Re: Status of tablespaces |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2003-01-28 16:45:29 | Re: SET NULL on NOT NULL field |
| Previous Message | Tomaz Borstnar | 2003-01-28 16:33:49 | Re: list server problems? |