On May 8, 2005, at 8:06 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:

If I were to use tsearch2 for full-text indexing, would I need to
create another table that merges all of my recordtext rows into a
single 'text' field type?

No. Read the OpenFTS docs, they are fairly clear on how to set up a simple
FTS index. (TSearch2 ~~ OpenFTS)

If so, this is where I run into problems, as
my logic also needs to match multiple words in their original order.

I have been reading the Tsearch2 docs and either I don't understand something or I'm not communicating my situation clearly enough. It seems that Tsearch2 has a concept of "document". And, in everything I am reading, they expect your "document" to be all contained in a single row. Since my words can be spread across multiple rows, I don't see that Tsearch2 will combine all 'recordtext' row values with the same "incidentid" into a single vector. Am I overlooking something in the docs?

I'm doing something fairly similar on one of my projects and it works very

I'd be curious what similarities they have? Is it the searching across multiple rows or the order of words?

The limitations on TSearch2 indexes are:
1) they are expensive to update, so your data loads would be noticably slower.
2) they are only fast when cached in RAM (and when cached, are *very* fast).
So if you have a variety of other processes that tend to fill up RAM between
searches, you may find them less useful.
3) You have to create a materialized index column next to recordtext, which
will increase the size of the table.

Duly noted. If this method can search across rows, I'm willing to accept this overhead for the speed it would add.

In the meantime, is there any way I can reach my goal without Tsearch2 by just restructuring my query to narrow down the results by date first, then seq scan for the 'likes'?


---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to