Re: Simplifying Text Search

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 11:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>> So we end up with a normal sounding function that is overloaded to
>>> provide all of the various goodies.
>> As best I can tell, @@ does exactly this already. This is just a
>> different spelling of the same capability, and I don't actually
>> find it better. Why is "text_search(x,y)" better than "x @@ y"?
>> We don't recommend that people write "texteq(x,y)" instead of
>> "x = y".
>
> Most people don't understand those differences. x = y means "make sure
> they are the same" to most people. They don't see what you (and I) see:
> function and operator interchangeability. So text_search() is better
> than @@ and = is better than texteq(). Life ain't neat...
>
> Right now, Full Text Search SQL looks like complete gibberish and it
> dissuades many people from using what is an awesome set of features. I
> just want to add a little sugar to help people get started.

Granted, @@ is a bit awkward until you get used to it. "x LIKE y" would
read out better, but unfortunately that's already taken ;-).

In any case, it's way too late.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com