| From: | bmccoy(at)chapelperilous(dot)net |
|---|---|
| To: | Jules Bean <jules(at)jellybean(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Steve Heaven <steve(at)thornet(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Performance for seq. scans |
| Date: | 2000-07-26 16:59:43 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.10.10007261256220.15843-100000@chapelperilous.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Jules Bean wrote:
> If I understand you correctly, that's word-based? It's just splitting
> on whitespace and punctuation? Unfortunately, that's not quite what
> we need --- our wildcard searches needn't have their '%' on word
> boundaries.
You can have it search on less than word boundaries. It uses a regexp in
the query statement, and actually will match against sub-strings. Check
the documentation. It talks about how this works.
Brett W. McCoy
http://www.chapelperilous.net/~bmccoy/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If everything is coming your way then you're in the wrong lane.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Blakeley | 2000-07-26 17:50:03 | Re: Performance for seq. scans |
| Previous Message | bmccoy | 2000-07-26 16:54:22 | Re: Access 97 Database and Postgres |