On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 02:58:02PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 14:44, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > > > > > > On 05/31/2011 06:41 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> > >> We already have a search system that works reasonably well for the > >> archives... > >> > > > > I trust this weas a piece of sarcasm. I spoke to more than a few people at > > pgcon and nobody had a good word to say about the search system on the > > archives. > > Well, it's tsearch. And I've heard nobody say anything else than that > it's *a lot* better than what we had before. > > But sure, it can probably be improved. But what people are then > basically asying is that tsearch isn't good enough for searching. > Which is too bad, but may be so, and in that case we need to fix > *that*, rather than build Yet Another Service To Do The Same Thing > Slightly Differently. > > -- > Magnus Hagander > Me: http://www.hagander.net/ > Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ >
I do agree that the current archive search is much, much better than the searching before the upgrade. I would be interested in taking a look at some open source projects with a "good" search engine. Most projects have search engines that are true exercises in frustration by pulling either apparently everything or next to nothing and nothing in between. If there is a good one to look at maybe we can do some tweaking our search engine to improve it. Regards, Ken -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers