| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chris <rc(at)networkz(dot)ch> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_trgm vs. Solr ngram |
| Date: | 2023-02-10 05:13:46 |
| Message-ID: | 4016890.1676006026@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Chris <rc(at)networkz(dot)ch> writes:
> Or maybe hacking my own pg_trgm wouldn't be so hard and could be fun, do
> I pretty much just need to change the emitted tokens or will this lead
> to significant complications in the operators, indexes etc.?
See KEEPONLYALNUM in pg_trgm/trgm.h ...
Now, using a custom-modified pg_trgm module in production is likely
not something you want to do for long. It might be interesting to
look into whether the relatively-recently-invented "operator class
parameter" mechanism could be exploited to allow this behavior to be
customized without hacking C code.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bertrand Mamasam | 2023-02-10 07:54:03 | Re: pg_trgm vs. Solr ngram |
| Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2023-02-10 03:48:48 | Re: pg_trgm vs. Solr ngram |