Tom Lane wrote:
Teodor Sigaev <> writes:
So I think there's a reasonable case for decreeing that <N> should only
match lexemes *exactly* N apart.  If we did that, we would no longer have
the misbehavior that Jean-Pierre is complaining about, and we'd not need
to argue about whether <0> needs to be treated specially.

Agree, seems that's easy to change.
Patch is attached

Hmm, couldn't the loop logic be simplified a great deal if this is the
definition?  Or are you leaving it like that with the idea that we might
later introduce another operator with the less-than-or-equal behavior?

Do you suggest something like merge join of two sorted lists? ie:

while(Rpos < Rdata.pos + Rdata.npos && Lpos < Ldata.pos + Ldata.npos)
        if (*Lpos > *Rpos)
        else if (*Lpos < *Rpos)
                if (*Rpos - *Lpos == distance)
                if (distance == 0)
                Lpos++; Rpos++;

Such algorithm finds closest pair of (Lpos, Rpos) but satisfying pair could be not closest, example: to_tsvector('simple', '1 2 1 2') @@ '1 <3> 2';

Teodor Sigaev                                   E-mail:

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to