Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> I don't think that follows. A tsearch index is lossy anyway, so there's > > > Uh, the index is lossy but I thought it was lossy in a way that just > > required additional heap accesses, not lossy in that it doesn't index > > everything. > > Sure it's lossy. It doesn't index stopwords, and it doesn't index the > difference between various forms of a word (when the dictionaries reduce > them to a common root).
Yes, but you specify the stop words and stemming rules --- it isn't like it drops words that are out of your control. > > I am concerned a 1mb limit is too low though. Exactly why can't we have > > a higher limit? Is positional information that significant? > > That's pretty much exactly the point: it's not very significant, and it > doesn't justify a total inability to index large documents. Agreed. I think losing positional information after 1mb is acceptable. > One thing we could do is index words that are past the limit but not > store a position, or perhaps have the convention that the maximum > position value means "somewhere past here". Sure. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
