| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Oleg Bartunov" <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
| Cc: | "Pgsql Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fate of CLUSTER command ? |
| Date: | 2002-08-04 05:34:26 |
| Message-ID: | 013501c23b78$99d89ee0$0200a8c0@SOL |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Yes, I have always liked CLUSTER with full text searches because you are
> usually hitting multiple rows with a single equaltiy restriction, and
> CLUSTER puts all the hits on the same page.
>
> If you look in contrib/fulltextindex, you will see mention of CLUSTER in
> the README. It may make sense to add that to your documentation.
>
> Also, is there any value to contrib/fulltextindex now that we have
> contrib/tsearch?
I haven't looked at tsearch yet, but I expect it's way better than
fulltextindex. However there's more than a few of us using fulltextindex,
so I think it will need to stay for some while. I'm working on a new
version of it for 7.3.
I can put pointers in the README about checking out tsearch...
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-04 05:41:29 | Re: fate of CLUSTER command ? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-04 05:02:50 | Re: Please, apply ltree patch |