Re: Has there been any discussion of custom dictionaries beingdefined in the database?
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Has there been any discussion of custom dictionaries beingdefined in the database? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20191019130826.usuxx5k7rhwmmnr5@development обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Has there been any discussion of custom dictionaries being defined in the database? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 11:52:39AM +0200, Tom Lane wrote: >Morris de Oryx <morrisdeoryx@gmail.com> writes: >> Given that Amazon is bragging this week about turning off Oracle, it seems >> like they could kick some resources towards contributing something to the >> Postgres project. With that in mind, is the idea of defining dictionaries >> within a table somehow meritless, or unexpectedly difficult? > >Well, it'd just be totally different. I don't think anybody cares to >provide two separate definitions of common dictionaries (which'd have to >somehow be kept in sync). > >As for why we did it with external text files in the first place --- >for at least some of the dictionary types, the point is that you can >drop in data files that are available from upstream sources, without any >modification. Getting the same info into a table would require some >nonzero amount of data transformation. > IMHO being able to load dictionaries from a table would be quite useful, and not just because of RDS. For example, it's not entirely true we're just using the upstream dictionaries verbatim - it's quite common to add new words, particularly in specialized fields. That's way easier when you can do that through a table and not through a file. >Having said that ... in the end a dictionary is really just a set of >functions implementing the dictionary API; where they get their data >from is their business. So in theory you could roll your own >dictionary that gets its data out of a table. But the dictionary API >would be pretty hard to implement except in C, and I bet RDS doesn't >let you install your own C functions either :-( > Not sure. Of course, if we expect the dictionary to work just like the ispell one, with preprocessing the dictionary into shmem, then that requires C. I don't think that's entirely necessary, thoug - we could use the table directly. Yes, that would be slower, but maybe it'd be sufficient. But I think the idea is ultimately that we'd implement a new dict type in core, and people would just specify which table to load data from. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: