From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Naming of the prefab snowball stemmer dictionaries |
Date: | 2007-08-22 15:10:44 |
Message-ID: | 7951.1187795444@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I notice that the existing tsearch documentation that we've imported
fairly consistently refers to Snowball dictionaries with names like
"en_stem", "ru_stem", etc. However, CVS HEAD is set up to create them
with names "english", "russian", etc. As I've been absorbing more of
the docs I'm starting to wonder whether this is a good idea. ISTM
that these names encourage a novice to think that the one dictionary
is all you could need for a given language; and there are enough
examples of more-complex setups in the docs to make it clear that
in fact Snowball is not the be-all and end-all of dictionaries.
I'm thinking that going back to the old naming convention (or something
like it --- maybe "english_stem", "russian_stem", etc) would be better.
It'd help to give the right impression, namely that these dictionaries
are a component of a solution but not necessarily all you need.
Thoughts?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-08-22 15:12:40 | Re: Crash with empty dictionary |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-08-22 14:39:01 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Simplify the syntax of CREATE/ALTER TEXT SEARCH DICTIONARY by |