On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:40:38 +0000 (UTC)
Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Damn, I completely overlooked that one, and it indeed does seem
> > to come very close to what I need in this use case.
>
> I have to admit that the name of that dictionary type threw me off
> a bit at first.
Indeed :)
> > ...
>
> It has been a while, but my recollection is that I did something
> more like this:
>
> heart attack : heartattack
> acute mi : heartattack
> mi : heartattack
> myocardial infarction : heartattack
>
> If my memory is to be trusted, both the original words (whichever
> are actually in the document) and the "invented" synonym
> ("heartattack") will be in the tsvector/tsquery; this results in
> all *matching* but the identical wording being considered a *closer
> match*.
Hmm, a very helpful insight and it indeed makes sense to convert each phrase into a "single word" mash-up so it can be lexemized.
> As with most things, I encourage you to play around with it a bit
> to see what gives the best results for you.
Yes indeed and will do!
Thank you very much for your help. If I get this up and running it might offer a nice opportunity to write a small post about this to expand on my PostgreSQL series...
> --
> Kevin Grittner
> EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Cheers,
Tim
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
