Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 11:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
So we end up with a normal sounding function that is overloaded to
provide all of the various goodies.
As best I can tell, @@ does exactly this already. This is just a
different spelling of the same capability, and I don't actually
find it better. Why is "text_search(x,y)" better than "x @@ y"?
We don't recommend that people write "texteq(x,y)" instead of
"x = y".
Most people don't understand those differences. x = y means "make sure
they are the same" to most people. They don't see what you (and I) see:
function and operator interchangeability. So text_search() is better
than @@ and = is better than texteq(). Life ain't neat...
Right now, Full Text Search SQL looks like complete gibberish and it
dissuades many people from using what is an awesome set of features. I
just want to add a little sugar to help people get started.
Granted, @@ is a bit awkward until you get used to it. "x LIKE y" would
read out better, but unfortunately that's already taken ;-).
In any case, it's way too late.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
