From: | "Graeme Merrall" <gbmerrall(at)aol(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: tsearch vs. fulltextindex |
Date: | 2002-08-14 04:53:46 |
Message-ID: | MMEKJDBHGFPPMNBALCOHOENICCAA.GBMerrall@aol.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
> I've just done some performance comparisons between contrib/fulltextindex
> and contrib/tsearch. Even with every optimisation I can think of for
> fulltextindex, tsearch is 300 times faster ;)
>
> Plus it doesn't require a separate table or complicated queries.
>
> I think we should strongly encourage people to use tsearch instead of
> fulltextindex. I hope to commit some change to fulltextindex in the near
> future, so I'll add a note to the readme then.
>
Ditto. We just replaced Oracle Context Search with tsearch and it's just as
good for what we were using it for and nicer to play with.
There's no scoring as far as I can see but I can live with that.
(and hello fellow aussie)
Cheers,
Graeme
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Patrick Nelson | 2002-08-14 06:03:44 | Re: Blob stuff |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-08-14 04:48:22 | Re: [HACKERS] tsearch vs. fulltextindex |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-14 04:57:48 | Re: Wacky OID idea |
Previous Message | Curt Sampson | 2002-08-14 04:49:32 | Re: OOP real life example (was Re: Why is MySQL more |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sugandha Shah | 2002-08-14 05:05:54 | Few Queries |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-08-14 04:48:22 | Re: [HACKERS] tsearch vs. fulltextindex |