| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | piotrowski(at)prisma(dot)io, Pg Docs <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: "GIN and GiST Index Types" page is about usage in full text search, but looks general purpose |
| Date: | 2022-04-12 20:28:47 |
| Message-ID: | 915352.1649795327@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 12:49 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I think we should take the index type names out of the section title
>> entirely, and name it something generic like "Preferred Index Types for
>> Full Text Search".
> Agreed.
Proposed patch attached. The existing text already says "GIN indexes are
the preferred text search index type", so I'm not sure we need to go
further than that about guiding people which one to use. In particular,
since GIN can't support included columns, we can't really deprecate GiST
altogether here.
> There is always the extreme option of excluding older versions in
> robots.txt. I bet that would work.
Yeah, I was wondering about that too. It's sort of the nuclear option,
but if we don't want to modify EOL'd versions then we may not have any
other way to keep Google from glomming onto them.
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| doc-tweak-full-text-index-docs.patch | text/x-diff | 1016 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-04-12 21:34:01 | Re: "GIN and GiST Index Types" page is about usage in full text search, but looks general purpose |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-04-12 19:53:23 | Re: "GIN and GiST Index Types" page is about usage in full text search, but looks general purpose |