Re: KEEPONLYALNUM for pg_trgm is not documented - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: KEEPONLYALNUM for pg_trgm is not documented
Date
Msg-id 19399.1299858408@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to KEEPONLYALNUM for pg_trgm is not documented  (Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com> writes:
> contrib/pg_trgm in 9.1 becomes more attractive feature by index supports
> for LIKE operators, but only alphabet and numeric characters are indexed
> by default. But, we can modify KEEPONLYALNUM in the source code to
> keep all characters in n-gram words.

> However, the limitation and KEEPONLYALNUM are not documented in the page:
>   http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/pgtrgm.html

> An additonal documentation patches acceptable? The issues would be a FAQ for
> non-English users. I heard that pg_trgm will be one of the *killer features*
> of 9.1 in Japan, where N-gram based text search is preferred.

I'm not sure it's really a great idea to encourage people to use custom
builds with modified versions of that symbol.  And those not using
custom builds will just be frustrated.  If we think this is an important
feature then we ought to work out a better way to expose the
functionality.

(Personally I wonder how useful pg_trgm is at all in multibyte
encodings.  Its idea of a trigram is 3 bytes, not 3 characters...)
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Flex output missing from 9.1a4 tarballs?
Next
From: Dave Page
Date:
Subject: Re: Flex output missing from 9.1a4 tarballs?