Re: procost for to_tsvector

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: procost for to_tsvector
Date: 2015-05-01 17:59:35
Message-ID: 37907.1430503175@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> In the OP, he suggested "on the order of 100". Maybe we could just go with 100.

I'm OK with that in view of <87h9trs0zm(dot)fsf(at)news-spur(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> and
some experiments of my own, but I wonder why we are only thinking of
to_tsvector. Isn't to_tsquery, for example, just about as expensive?
What of other text search functions?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2015-05-01 18:11:14 Re: Manipulating complex types as non-contiguous structures in-memory
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2015-05-01 17:54:11 Re: feature freeze and beta schedule