Re: Latin vs non-Latin words in text search parsing

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Oleg Bartunov" <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, "Teodor Sigaev" <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Latin vs non-Latin words in text search parsing
Date: 2007-10-23 14:49:18
Message-ID: 11225.1193150958@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> (As an example, "foo-beta1" is a numhword, with component tokens
> "foo" an aword and "beta1" a numword. This is how it works now
> modulo the redefinition of the base categories.)

Argh... need more caffeine. Obviously the component tokens would
be apart_hword and numpart_hword. They'd be the others only if
they were *not* part of a hyphenated word.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Glaesemann 2007-10-23 14:52:19 Re: Latin vs non-Latin words in text search parsing
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-10-23 14:42:41 Re: Latin vs non-Latin words in text search parsing