At 10:52 AM 11/28/00 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> > b) Check out MSSQL 7's capabilities and weep.
>>
>> BTW, have you studied MSSQL enough to tell me if it has a
>> separate/standalone
>> (as a process) fti engine or just another index type.
>It is standalone - separate process, data is sto
> > b) Check out MSSQL 7's capabilities and weep.
>
> BTW, have you studied MSSQL enough to tell me if it has a
> separate/standalone
> (as a process) fti engine or just another index type.
It is standalone - separate process, data is stored in separate files (not
in db).
In SQL Server 7.0, yo
john huttley wrote:
>
> > I believe that it is appropriate for contrib/ because it is a good demo
> > of FTI-like capabilities. But nothing more, yet. For at least a couple
> > of reasons:
> >
> > 1) It generates the "index" as a table, not a PostgreSQL index or
> > index-like thing.
> >
> > 2) I
> I believe that it is appropriate for contrib/ because it is a good demo
> of FTI-like capabilities. But nothing more, yet. For at least a couple
> of reasons:
>
> 1) It generates the "index" as a table, not a PostgreSQL index or
> index-like thing.
>
> 2) It has a hardcoded list of non-indexed
> > OK, can someone collect suggestions, add the code, and integrate it for
> > 7.1?
>
> too late in cycle ...
How about first thing for 7.2 then? While it lies in limbo,
its never going to get the attention it deserves.
Regards
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> I modified the FTI trigger for my own use a while ago (indexes whole
> words, eliminates duplicate a few other things) -- I'm not sure if it would
> do anyone any good but you're welcome to it. To whom should I send it?
Is full-word optional
> > > Maybe asking 'Why isn't the contrib full-text-indexer not in the main
> > > tree?' would be more productive on that front.
> > Well, yes. Why isn't it?
I believe that it is appropriate for contrib/ because it is a good demo
of FTI-like capabilities. But nothing more, yet. For at least a cou
At 11:06 PM 11/27/00 -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> OK, can someone collect suggestions, add the code, and integrate it for
>> 7.1?
>
>too late in cycle ...
Yes...
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pa
Hacker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Don Baccus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John Huttley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Full text Index
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >Well, yes. Why isn't it?
> > >
> > >Full text indexing should be just as much a feature as any other key feature in
> > >PG.
> > >With the advent of unlimited file and record lengths in 7.1, this would be a good
> > >time to
> > >include it.
> > >
>
> >Well, yes. Why isn't it?
> >
> >Full text indexing should be just as much a feature as any other key feature in
> >PG.
> >With the advent of unlimited file and record lengths in 7.1, this would be a good
> >time to
> >include it.
> >
> >FTI is particularly useful in the context of web content e
John Huttley wrote:
> > Maybe asking 'Why isn't the contrib full-text-indexer not in the main
> > tree?' would be more productive on that front.
> Well, yes. Why isn't it?
I'm hoping to see the answer to that one myself, as that is outside my
scope currently. I just RPMize things... Although,
At 02:51 PM 11/28/00 +1300, John Huttley wrote:
>>
>> Maybe asking 'Why isn't the contrib full-text-indexer not in the main
>> tree?' would be more productive on that front.
>
>Well, yes. Why isn't it?
>
>Full text indexing should be just as much a feature as any other key feature in
>PG.
>With th
13 matches
Mail list logo
