Hi all, Which one is better (performance/easier to use), tsearch2 or fulltextindex? there is an example how to use fulltextindex in the techdocs, but I checked the contrib/fulltextindex package, there is a WARNING that fulltextindex is much slower than tsearch2. but tsearch2 seems complex to use, and I can not find a good example. Which one I should use? Any suggestions?
thanks and Regards, William ----- Original Message ----- From: Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 5:33 pm Subject: Re: [PERFORM] why index scan not working when using 'like'? > Tom Lane kirjutas T, 25.11.2003 kell 23:29: > > Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > In regular text fields containing words, your problem is > solvable with full > > > text indexing (FTI). Unfortunately, FTI is not designed for > arbitrary > > > non-language strings. It could be adapted, but would require a > lot of > > > hacking. > > > > I'm not sure why you say that FTI isn't a usable solution. As > long as > > the gene symbols are separated by whitespace or some other non- > letters> (eg, "foo mif bar" not "foomifbar"), I'd think FTI would > work. > If he wants to search on arbitrary substring, he could change > tokeniserin FTI to produce trigrams, so that "foomifbar" would be > indexed as if > it were text "foo oom omi mif ifb fba bar" and search for things like > %mifb% should first do a FTI search for "mif" AND "ifb" and then > simpleLIKE %mifb% to weed out something like "mififb". > > There are ways to use trigrams for 1 and 2 letter matches as well. > > ------------- > Hannu > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)----------------------- > ---- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that > your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
