"Bruce Momjian" <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
>> "Bruce Momjian" <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>>
>> > There is no question things would be clearer with only one text search
>> > data type. The only value I can see to having a tsquery data type is
>> > that you can store a tsquery value in a column, but why would that be
>> > much better than just storing it in a TEXT field?
>>
>> When you try storing a tsquery in a column does it alert you if you have an
>> invalid syntax at that point? Storing it as text would mean not finding out
>> until you try to use the query.
>
> Yes it does check syntax:
>
> test=> select 'lkjadsf kjfdsa'::tsquery;
> ERROR: syntax error in tsearch query: "lkjadsf kjfdsa"
>
> A larger question is how many people store queries in the database to
> make it worth the complexity.
So would this still happen if you didn't have a tsquery type? Or would it
throw the error only when the actual matching operator executed and tried to
parse the text?
>> Is converting a text query into the internal format faster or less memory
>> intensive than converting text into the internal representation? When you run
>> a query like "WHERE '...' @@ col" if there wasn't a tsquery data type then
>> '...' would have to be parsed over and over again for each row.
>
> No, internally the TEXT string would be converted to something the
> system could deal with for that query, which is probably what 99% of all
> queries are going to do anyway by calling to_tsquery().
How would that happen if there wasn't a tsquery type?
-- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
