On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've coded a small patch to allow CaseSensitive synonyms.
Applied with corrections (it'd be good if you at least pretended to test
stuff before submitting it).
Would a similar parameter be useful for any of the other
On Sun, 2008-03-09 at 23:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've coded a small patch to allow CaseSensitive synonyms.
Applied with corrections (it'd be good if you at least pretended to test
stuff before submitting it).
It is a frequent accusation of yours that
Simon Riggs wrote:
As Greg mentions on another thread, not all patches are *intended* to be
production quality by their authors. Many patches are shared for the
purpose of eliciting general feedback. You yourself encourage a group
development approach and specifically punish those people
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 08:24 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
As Greg mentions on another thread, not all patches are *intended* to be
production quality by their authors. Many patches are shared for the
purpose of eliciting general feedback. You yourself encourage a group
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think if you post something marked Work In Progress, there is an
implied commitment on your part to post something complete at a later stage.
It *wasn't* marked Work In Progress, and Simon went out of his way to
cross-post it to -patches, where the
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 09:42 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I think if you post something marked Work In Progress, there is an
implied commitment on your part to post something complete at a later stage.
So if it's forgotten you would be the one doing the forgetting. ;-)
But if they aren't on
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 08:24 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
As Greg mentions on another thread, not all patches are *intended* to be
production quality by their authors. Many patches are shared for the
purpose of eliciting general feedback. You
Oleg Bartunov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
Would a similar parameter be useful for any of the other dictionary
types?
There are many things desirable to do with dictionaries, for example,
say dictionary to return an original word plus it's normal form.
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 10:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
In future perhaps I should take it as a given that
Simon doesn't expect his patches to be applied?
I think you should take it as a given that Simon would like to try to
work together, sharing ideas and code, without insults and public
derision
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
As Greg mentions on another thread, not all patches are *intended* to be
production quality by their authors. Many patches are shared for the
purpose of eliciting general feedback. You yourself encourage a group
development approach and
Hmm, I can see how some middleware would help with folding or not
folding the input token, but what about the words coming from the
dictionary file (particularly the *output* lexeme)? It's not apparent
to me that it's sensible to try to control that from outside the
dictionary.
Right now I see
Well, if you think this can/should be done somewhere outside the
dictionary, should I revert the applied patch?
No, that patch is about case sensitivity of synonym dictionary. I suppose, Simon
wants to replace 'bill' to 'account', but doesn't want to get 'account Clinton'
For another
Teodor Sigaev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmm, I can see how some middleware would help with folding or not
folding the input token, but what about the words coming from the
dictionary file (particularly the *output* lexeme)? It's not apparent
to me that it's sensible to try to control that
Right now I see an significant advantage of such layer: two possible
extension of dictionary (filtering and storing original form) are
One more extension: drop too long words. For example, decrease limit of max
length of word to prevent long to be indexed - word with 100 characters is
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've coded a small patch to allow CaseSensitive synonyms.
Applied with corrections (it'd be good if you at least pretended to test
stuff before submitting it).
Would a similar parameter be useful for any of the other dictionary
types?
This has been saved for the 8.4 release:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
---
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 10:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Oleg Bartunov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems possible to write your own functions to support various
possibilities with text search.
One of the more common thoughts is to have a list of words that you
would like to include, i.e. the opposite of a stop word list.
There are clear indications that indexing too many words is a
Simon Riggs wrote:
It seems possible to write your own functions to support various
possibilities with text search.
One of the more common thoughts is to have a list of words that you
would like to include, i.e. the opposite of a stop word list.
There are clear indications that indexing
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007, Simon Riggs wrote:
It seems possible to write your own functions to support various
possibilities with text search.
One of the more common thoughts is to have a list of words that you
would like to include, i.e. the opposite of a stop word list.
There are clear
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 12:58 +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
It seems possible to write your own functions to support various
possibilities with text search.
One of the more common thoughts is to have a list of words that you
would like to include, i.e. the opposite
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 12:58 +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
It seems possible to write your own functions to support various
possibilities with text search.
One of the more common thoughts is to have a list of words that you
would
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 16:10 +0400, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007, Simon Riggs wrote:
It seems possible to write your own functions to support various
possibilities with text search.
One of the more common thoughts is to have a list of words
How does that allow me to limit the number of words to a known list?
If all dictionaries returns NULL for token the this token will not be indexed at
all.
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW:
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 16:10 +0400, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007, Simon Riggs wrote:
It seems possible to write your own functions to support various
possibilities with text search.
One of the more common thoughts is to have a list of words that you
would like to include,
There are clear indications that indexing too many words is a problem
for both GIN and GIST. If people already know what they'll be looking
GIN doesn't depend strongly on number of words. It has log(N) behaviour for
numbers of words because of using B-Tree over words.
--
Teodor Sigaev
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 16:35 +0400, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 16:10 +0400, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007, Simon Riggs wrote:
It seems possible to write your own functions to support various
possibilities with text
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 16:48 +0400, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
There are clear indications that indexing too many words is a problem
for both GIN and GIST. If people already know what they'll be looking
GIN is great, sorry if that sounded negative.
GIN doesn't depend strongly on number of words.
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 16:48 +0400, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
There are clear indications that indexing too many words is a problem
for both GIN and GIST. If people already know what they'll be looking
GIN is great, sorry if that sounded negative.
GIN
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 16:35 +0400, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 16:10 +0400, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007, Simon Riggs wrote:
It seems possible to write your own functions to support
Oleg Bartunov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007, Simon Riggs wrote:
Can we include that functionality now?
This could be realized very easyly using dict_strict, which returns
only known words, and mapping contains only this dictionary. So,
feel free to write it and submit.
...
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
Oleg Bartunov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007, Simon Riggs wrote:
Can we include that functionality now?
This could be realized very easyly using dict_strict, which returns
only known words, and mapping contains only this dictionary. So,
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 10:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Oleg Bartunov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007, Simon Riggs wrote:
Can we include that functionality now?
This could be realized very easyly using dict_strict, which returns
only known words, and mapping contains only this
32 matches
Mail list logo
