Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't think that follows. A tsearch index is lossy anyway, so there's
> Uh, the index is lossy but I thought it was lossy in a way that just
> required additional heap accesses, not lossy in that it doesn't index
> everything.
Sure it's lossy. It doesn't index stopwords, and it doesn't index the
difference between various forms of a word (when the dictionaries reduce
them to a common root).
> I am concerned a 1mb limit is too low though. Exactly why can't we have
> a higher limit? Is positional information that significant?
That's pretty much exactly the point: it's not very significant, and it
doesn't justify a total inability to index large documents.
One thing we could do is index words that are past the limit but not
store a position, or perhaps have the convention that the maximum
position value means "somewhere past here".
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
