At 10:52 AM 11/28/00 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> > b) Check out MSSQL 7's capabilities and weep.
>> BTW, have you studied MSSQL enough to tell me if it has a
>> (as a process) fti engine or just another index type.
>It is standalone - separate process, data is stored in separate files (not
>In SQL Server 7.0, you also have to manually update the index. Just updating
>the values in the table does *NOT* update the index. (Can be scheduled, of
>course, but not live)
>In SQL Server 2000 the index can be auto-updated when rows change, but it's
This is similar to Oracle's InterMedia. In practice, using auto-update on a
busy, live website is impractical, though how much this is due to InterMedia's
being flakey and how much due to the computational expense isn't clear (or rather
IM's so flakey one can't really explore enough to see how expensive
auto-update on a busy site would be).
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Don Baccus||Date: 2000-11-28 14:44:21|
|Subject: Re: Question about Oracle compatibility|
|Previous:||From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB||Date: 2000-11-28 14:40:15|
|Subject: AW: [HACKERS] is it a bug?|