Re: Performance for seq. scans

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jules Bean <jules(at)jellybean(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: Steve Heaven <steve(at)thornet(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance for seq. scans
Date: 2000-07-27 19:35:44
Message-ID: 200007271935.PAA29124@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

> > We were in a similar position and went for the 'Full Text Indexing" extra.
> > You'll find it in contrib/fulltextindex.
> > It creates a function which you call on a trigger to produce an index of
> > words for specified fields. These indexes do get _very_ large (one of ours
> > is ~800 MB), but it does work very well and speeds searches up enormously.
>
> If I understand you correctly, that's word-based? It's just splitting
> on whitespace and punctuation? Unfortunately, that's not quite what
> we need --- our wildcard searches needn't have their '%' on word
> boundaries.

It is not word-based. It slices each word into pieces and indexes it.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2000-07-27 19:41:30 Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL + Microsoft Access FAQ Draft Announcement
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2000-07-27 19:21:37 Re: 4 billion record limit?