Michael Riess wrote: > Bruce Momjian schrieb: > > Oleg Bartunov wrote: > >> Folks, > >> > >> tsearch2 and Lucene are very different search engines, so it'd be unfair > >> comparison. If you need full access to metadata and instant indexing > >> you, probably, find tsearch2 is more suitable then Lucene. But, if > >> you could live without that features and need to search read only > >> archives you need Lucene. > >> > >> Tsearch2 integration into pgsql would be cool, but, I see no problem to > >> use tsearch2 as an official extension module. After completing our > >> todo, which we hope will likely happens for 8.2 release, you could > >> forget about Lucene and other engines :) We'll be available for developing > >> in spring and we estimate about three months for our todo, so, it's > >> really doable. > > > > Agreed. There isn't anything magical about a plug-in vs something > > integrated, as least in PostgreSQL. In other database, plug-ins can't > > fully function as integrated, but in PostgreSQL, everything is really a > > plug-in because it is all abstracted. > > > I only remember evaluating TSearch2 about a year ago, and when I read > statements like "Vacuum and/or database dump/restore work differently > when using TSearch2, sql scripts need to be executed etc." I knew that I > would not want to go there. > > But I don't doubt that it works, and that it is a sane concept. Good point. I think we had some problems at that point because the API was improved between versions. Even if it had been integrated, we might have had the same problem. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
