Re: [PROPOSAL] Improvements of Hunspell dictionaries support

From: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
To: Artur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Improvements of Hunspell dictionaries support
Date: 2015-10-20 22:37:33
Message-ID: 5626C22D.8000302@BlueTreble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10/20/15 9:00 AM, Artur Zakirov wrote:
> Internal representation of the dictionary in the PostgreSQL doesn't
> impose too strict limits on the number of affix rules. There are a
> flagval array, which size must be increased from 256 to 65000.

Is that per dictionary entry, fixed at 64k? That seems pretty excessive,
if that's the case...
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2015-10-20 22:53:54 Re: Why no CONSTANT for row variables in plpgsql?
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2015-10-20 22:29:23 Re: [PATCH] Typos in comments