Re: [PROPOSAL] Improvements of Hunspell dictionaries support - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim Nasby
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Improvements of Hunspell dictionaries support
Date
Msg-id 5626C22D.8000302@BlueTreble.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to [PROPOSAL] Improvements of Hunspell dictionaries support  (Artur Zakirov <a.zakirov@postgrespro.ru>)
Responses Re: [PROPOSAL] Improvements of Hunspell dictionaries support  (Artur Zakirov <a.zakirov@postgrespro.ru>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 10/20/15 9:00 AM, Artur Zakirov wrote:
> Internal representation of the dictionary in the PostgreSQL doesn't
> impose too strict limits on the number of affix rules. There are a
> flagval array, which size must be increased from 256 to 65000.

Is that per dictionary entry, fixed at 64k? That seems pretty excessive, 
if that's the case...
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Typos in comments
Next
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: Why no CONSTANT for row variables in plpgsql?