Michael Riess wrote:
> Bruce Momjian schrieb:
> > Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >> tsearch2 and Lucene are very different search engines, so it'd be unfair
> >> comparison. If you need full access to metadata and instant indexing
> >> you, probably, find tsearch2 is more suitable then Lucene. But, if
> >> you could live without that features and need to search read only
> >> archives you need Lucene.
> >>
> >> Tsearch2 integration into pgsql would be cool, but, I see no problem to
> >> use tsearch2 as an official extension module. After completing our
> >> todo, which we hope will likely happens for 8.2 release, you could
> >> forget about Lucene and other engines :) We'll be available for developing
> >> in spring and we estimate about three months for our todo, so, it's
> >> really doable.
> >
> > Agreed. There isn't anything magical about a plug-in vs something
> > integrated, as least in PostgreSQL. In other database, plug-ins can't
> > fully function as integrated, but in PostgreSQL, everything is really a
> > plug-in because it is all abstracted.
>
>
> I only remember evaluating TSearch2 about a year ago, and when I read
> statements like "Vacuum and/or database dump/restore work differently
> when using TSearch2, sql scripts need to be executed etc." I knew that I
> would not want to go there.
>
> But I don't doubt that it works, and that it is a sane concept.
Good point. I think we had some problems at that point because the API
was improved between versions. Even if it had been integrated, we might
have had the same problem.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
