On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> In the particular case here, the dictionary structures could probably >> safely use such a context type, but I'm not sure it's worth bothering >> if the long-term plan is to implement a precompiler. There would be >> no need for this after the precompiled representation is installed, >> because that'd just be one big hunk of memory anyway. > > Rather than inventing something more complex, I'm inclined to say we > should just go ahead and apply this more or less as Pavel wrote it. I > haven't tried to reproduce Pavel's results, but I assume that they are > accurate and that's a pretty big savings for a pretty trivial amount > of code. If it gets thrown away later when/if someone codes up a > precompiler, no harm done.
I tried to reproduce Pavel's results this afternoon and failed. I read the documentation: http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/textsearch-dictionaries.html#TEXTSEARCH-ISPELL-DICTIONARY ...and I followed the link to ispell. And I installed it from MacPorts. And then I built it by hand, too. And I'm still confused. Because I don't see anything in either set of results that looks like the right set of files to use with CREATE TEXT SEARCH DICTIONARY. What am I doing wrong? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
