| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "C(dot) Filipe Medeiros" <filipe(at)mercenary3(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: First Step to Major Use: Integrated Full-Text |
| Date: | 2005-12-06 01:36:50 |
| Message-ID: | 4394EB32.8020202@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
> 2. MySQL supports full-text searching (not to mention
> commercial-brand dbs like SQL Server 2005). Now that MySQL
> supports transactions as well, there's less reason than ever for
> web developers to build their applications with Postgres support.
> Full-text search in Postgres (which as a contrib module is already
> more functional than MySQL's integrated search) could make a huge
> difference in database choice. Why be left behind when everyone
> else is providing this functionality to their users?
Although I agree with your arguments for integration, I should point out
that MySQL's full text indexing and it's transactions are mutually
exclusive. You can't have both.
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-12-06 01:38:00 | Re: First Step to Major Use: Integrated Full-Text |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-12-06 01:34:09 | Re: First Step to Major Use: Integrated Full-Text |