Thanks for replying. My problem is that I can't provide enough guidance on what isn't working, because (a) I don't have good enough intuitions about how the normalization options are expected to affect the results, and (b) I can't identify a specific missing function - I'm just observing that I can't make the results as high-quality as Solr.
My apologies.
Sam
On 3/4/22 10:25 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 08:10:48AM -0500, Bayer, Samuel wrote:
Hi all -
When I have a need for both sophisticated database querying and
full-text search, I'd rather not stand up a technology stack with
multiple tools (e.g., Postgres and Apache Solr, or Postgres and
ElasticSearch with a zomboDB bridge). So I've been looking at the
Postgres full-text search capability, and comparing it to Apache
Solr. My experience so far - which has not been entirely anecdotal,
but hasn't amounted to a formal TREC-style evaluation - is that
Postgres full-text search, in any ranking/normalization configuration
I can create, is reliably worse than Solr. Now, I understand that the
whole point of Solr is search, and this is a sideline for Postgres,
but I'd like to figure out how close Postgres can get, and while I'm
knowledgeable about search technologies, I'm not an expert. And I've
looked for information on the Web about comparing Postgres search
to other search capabilities, and everything I've found so far is
extremely basic.
Does anybody have any pointers to resources (people, sites, journal
articles, blogs, etc.) which are deeply knowledgeable about this
comparison?
Uh, most of our full text seach is done by Russian developers, who are
obviously very good at it. It would be helpful if you could list
exactly what is missing and then we can have a discussion the hackers
list to see what is possible. I think it would be helpful if we just
document what we _don't_ have.
