| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Riess <mlriess(at)gmx(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: TSearch2 vs. Apache Lucene |
| Date: | 2005-12-07 01:40:43 |
| Message-ID: | 43963D9B.4020605@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
...
So you'll avoid a non-core product and instead only use another non-core
product...?
Chris
Michael Riess wrote:
>
>> Has anyone ever compared TSearch2 to Lucene, as far as performance is
>> concerned?
>
>
> I'll stay away from TSearch2 until it is fully integrated in the
> postgres core (like "create index foo_text on foo (texta, textb) USING
> TSearch2"). Because a full integration is unlikely to happen in the near
> future (as far as I know), I'll stick to Lucene.
>
> Mike
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rick Schumeyer | 2005-12-07 03:06:52 | table partitioning: effects of many sub-tables (was COPY too slow...) |
| Previous Message | Michael Stone | 2005-12-07 01:31:07 | Re: LVM and Postgres |