Re: [GENERAL] Incorrect FTS result with GIN index

Tom, you can download dump http://mira.sai.msu.su/~megera/tmp/search_tab.dump Oleg On Tue, 27 Jul 2010, Tom Lane wrote: Oleg Bartunov o...@sai.msu.su writes: I recommend post your problem to -hackers mailing list. I have no idea, what could be a problem. I wonder whether the problem is not

Re: [GENERAL] Incorrect FTS result with GIN index

Oleg Bartunov o...@sai.msu.su writes: I recommend post your problem to -hackers mailing list. I have no idea, what could be a problem. I wonder whether the problem is not windows versus non windows but original database versus copies. If it is a GIN bug it seems quite possible that it would

Re: [GENERAL] Incorrect FTS result with GIN index

Hello Oleg, I totally agree, that the problem should be fixed. Saying this, I need to add that: - I have no knowledge of postgres development, - I cannot dedicate any significant time to this problem, - I am no longer working for the project where the problem occurred, - In the mentioned project

Re: [GENERAL] Incorrect FTS result with GIN index

Artur, you could get much more problems in future. Full text search problem may be signature of more general problem with your postgres setup. So, I'd recommend to find a source of the problem Oleg On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Artur Dabrowski wrote: Oleg, thanks for your help. I sent a post to

Re: [GENERAL] Incorrect FTS result with GIN index

I tested the same backup on our CentOS 5.4 virtual machine (running on xen server) and the results are really weird (118 rows, comparing to 116 on win xp and 123 expected): Aggregate (cost=104.00..104.01 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=120.373..120.374 rows=1 loops=1) - Bitmap Heap Scan on

Re: [GENERAL] Incorrect FTS result with GIN index

The CentOS used for testing is a 64-bits version. Artur Dabrowski wrote: I tested the same backup on our CentOS 5.4 virtual machine (running on xen server) and the results are really weird (118 rows, comparing to 116 on win xp and 123 expected): -- View this message in context:

Re: [GENERAL] Incorrect FTS result with GIN index

Artur, I recommend post your problem to -hackers mailing list. I have no idea, what could be a problem. My machine is: uname -a Linux mira 2.6.33-020633-generic #020633 SMP Thu Feb 25 10:10:03 UTC 2010 x86_64 GNU/Linux PostgreSQL 8.4.4 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (Ubuntu

Re: [GENERAL] Incorrect FTS result with GIN index

Oleg, thanks for your help. I sent a post to pg-hackers list: http://old.nabble.com/Query-results-differ-depending-on-operating-system-%28using-GIN%29-ts29213082.html As to compiling pg... I will no do this since I do not really feel comfortable doing it and cannot dedicate too much time to

Re: [GENERAL] Incorrect FTS result with GIN index

Hello Oleg, my results are different. The analysis looks like this (please note the different numbers of rows): Aggregate (cost=104.05..104.06 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=152.133..152.135 rows=1 loops=1) - Bitmap Heap Scan on search_tab (cost=5.39..103.98 rows=25 width=0) (actual

Re: [GENERAL] Incorrect FTS result with GIN index

Artur, I don't know, but could you try linux machine ? Oleg On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, Artur Dabrowski wrote: Hello Oleg, my results are different. The analysis looks like this (please note the different numbers of rows): Aggregate (cost=104.05..104.06 rows=1 width=0) (actual

Re: [GENERAL] Incorrect FTS result with GIN index

Artur, I downloaded your dump and tried your queries with index, I see no problem so far. Table public.search_tab Column | Type |Modifiers +-+--

[GENERAL] Incorrect FTS result with GIN index

Hello, I was trying to use GIN index, but the results seem be incorrect. 1. QUERY WITHOUT INDEX select count(*) from search_tab where (to_tsvector('german', keywords ) @@ to_tsquery('german', 'ee:*')) and (to_tsvector('german', keywords ) @@ to_tsquery('german', 'dd:*')); count ---