Обсуждение: tsearch in core patch, for inclusion
We (Oleg and me) are glad to present tsearch in core of pgsql patch. In basic, layout, functions, methods, types etc are the same as in current tsearch2 with a lot of improvements: - pg_ts_* tables now are in pg_catalog - parsers, dictionaries, configurations now have owner and namespace similar to other pgsql's objects like tables, operator classes etc - current tsearch configuration is managed with a help of GUC variable tsearch_conf_name. - choosing of tsearch cfg by locale may be done for each schema separately - managing of tsearchconfiguration with a help of SQL commands, not with insert/update/delete statements. This allows to drive dependencies, correct dumping and dropping. - psql support with a help of \dF* commands - add all available Snowball stemmersand corresponding configuration - correct memory freeing by any dictionary Work is sponsored by EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL Development Fund. patch: http://www.sigaev.ru/misc/tsearch_core-0.33.gz docs: http://mira.sai.msu.su/~megera/pgsql/ftsdoc/ (not yet completed and it's not yet a patch, just a SGML source) Implementation details: - directory layout src/backend/utils/adt/tsearch - all IO function and simple operations src/backend/utils/tsearch- complex processing functions, including language processing and dictionaries - most of snowball dictionaries are placed in separate .so library and they plug in into data base by similar way as characterconversation library does. If there aren't objections then we plan commit patch tomorrow or after tomorrow. Before committing, I'll changes oids from 5000+ to lower values to prevent holes in oids. And after that, I'll remove tsearch2 contrib module. -- Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
Teodor Sigaev wrote: > If there aren't objections then we plan commit patch tomorrow or > after tomorrow. I still haven't heard any argument for why this would be necessary or desirable at all, other than that it looks better for marketing reasons, which I will counter by saying that it looks worse for marketing reasons because our hailed plugin mechanism is apparently so poor that it can't support some practical extension module such as this. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>> If there aren't objections then we plan commit patch tomorrow or
>> after tomorrow.
>
> I still haven't heard any argument for why this would be necessary or
> desirable at all, other than that it looks better for marketing
> reasons, which I will counter by saying that it looks worse for
> marketing reasons because our hailed plugin mechanism is apparently so
> poor that it can't support some practical extension module such as
> this.
Of which I will counter that we don't have a hailed plugin mechanism. We
have a contrib which professionals generally consider untested and not
part of PostgreSQL.
I am constantly running into this:
Q. Does PostgreSQL have full text indexing?
A. Yes it is in contrib.
Q. But that isn't part of core.
A. *sigh*
Where on the website can I see what "plugins" are included with PostgreSQL?
Where on the website can I see the Official PostgreSQL Documentation for
Full Text Indexing?
With TSearch2 in core will that fix the many upgrade problems associated
with using TSearch2?
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
> Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>> If there aren't objections then we plan commit patch tomorrow or
>> after tomorrow.
This is a fairly large patch and I would like the chance to review it
before it goes in --- "we'll commit tomorrow" is not exactly a decent
review window.
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> I still haven't heard any argument for why this would be necessary or
> desirable at all, other than that it looks better for marketing
> reasons,
One possible argument for this over the contrib version is a saner
approach to dumping and restoring configurations. However, as against
that:
1) what's the upgrade path for getting an existing tsearch2
configuration into this implementation?
2) once we put this in core we are going to be stuck with supporting its
SQL API forever. Are we convinced that this API is the one we want?
I don't recall even having seen any proposal or discussion. It was OK
for tsearch2's API to change every release while it was in contrib, but
the expectation of stability is a whole lot higher for core features.
regards, tom lane
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> Teodor Sigaev wrote: >> >>> If there aren't objections then we plan commit patch tomorrow or >>> after tomorrow. >>> >> I still haven't heard any argument for why this would be necessary or >> desirable at all, other than that it looks better for marketing >> reasons, which I will counter by saying that it looks worse for >> marketing reasons because our hailed plugin mechanism is apparently so >> poor that it can't support some practical extension module such as >> this. >> > > Of which I will counter that we don't have a hailed plugin mechanism. We > have a contrib which professionals generally consider untested and not > part of PostgreSQL. > > I am constantly running into this: > > Q. Does PostgreSQL have full text indexing? > A. Yes it is in contrib. > Q. But that isn't part of core. > A. *sigh* > > Where on the website can I see what "plugins" are included with PostgreSQL? > > Where on the website can I see the Official PostgreSQL Documentation for > Full Text Indexing? > > With TSearch2 in core will that fix the many upgrade problems associated > with using TSearch2? > > > contrib is a horrible misnomer. Can we maybe bite the bullet and call it something else? cheers andrew
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 19:15 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Teodor Sigaev wrote: > > If there aren't objections then we plan commit patch tomorrow or > > after tomorrow. > > I still haven't heard any argument for why this would be necessary or > desirable at all, other than that it looks better for marketing > reasons, which I will counter by saying that it looks worse for > marketing reasons because our hailed plugin mechanism is apparently so > poor that it can't support some practical extension module such as > this. > On that point, why do we have /contrib? It's for "plugins" that are so version-dependent that they can't exist as a separate project, as I understand it. But what we want when we say we have a plugin mechanism is something more like CPAN, where software is developed on it's own timeline and can be added seamlessly into any version of PostgreSQL that supports the needs of the project. PostGIS is a good example of this. You don't have to wait for a PostgreSQL release to upgrade PostGIS, and they don't have to discuss the intricacies of spatial queries and data on -hackers. If tsearch2 really does need to be in lockstep with the PostgreSQL releases (although I don't see why it does), I don't see a problem putting it in core. It's an important feature, and we're already giving up a lot of the benefits of plugins anyway by distributing it with the project. Regards,Jeff Davis
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 01:53:54PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > >>Teodor Sigaev wrote: > >> > >>>If there aren't objections then we plan commit patch tomorrow or > >>>after tomorrow. > >>> > >>I still haven't heard any argument for why this would be necessary or > >>desirable at all, other than that it looks better for marketing > >>reasons, which I will counter by saying that it looks worse for > >>marketing reasons because our hailed plugin mechanism is apparently so > >>poor that it can't support some practical extension module such as > >>this. > > > >Of which I will counter that we don't have a hailed plugin mechanism. We > >have a contrib which professionals generally consider untested and not > >part of PostgreSQL. > > > >I am constantly running into this: > > > >Q. Does PostgreSQL have full text indexing? > >A. Yes it is in contrib. > >Q. But that isn't part of core. > >A. *sigh* > > > >Where on the website can I see what "plugins" are included with > >PostgreSQL? > > > >Where on the website can I see the Official PostgreSQL > >Documentation for Full Text Indexing? > > > >With TSearch2 in core will that fix the many upgrade problems > >associated with using TSearch2? > > contrib is a horrible misnomer. Can we maybe bite the bullet and > call it something else? Some version of "version-dependent plugins?" Cheers, D (who hasn't come up with anything shorter just yet) -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote!
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Teodor Sigaev wrote: > > If there aren't objections then we plan commit patch tomorrow or > > after tomorrow. > > I still haven't heard any argument for why this would be necessary or > desirable at all, other than that it looks better for marketing > reasons, which I will counter by saying that it looks worse for > marketing reasons because our hailed plugin mechanism is apparently so > poor that it can't support some practical extension module such as > this. I for one am greatly looking forward to tsearch2 being in core. I was very fond of the plugin mechanism, until I signed up with a hosting provider. I do not have superuser privileges on the database cluster, and they will not install any plugins due to unspecified "security concerns". So ATM if I want full text indexing, my only choice would be to avail myself of their mysql instance which has it built in. So I have been jaded, and my opinion of optional plugins has gone from "wow, this is neat" to "man, this is a pain". They do not install plpgsql so I cannot write any triggers, they don't install tsearch2 so I don't get full text indexing, so all of the great features of postgres I have come to enjoy on my own box are suddenly taken away :( Sorry for the rant, I am just looking forward to 8.3 so I could get full text indexing... -- ARCHDUKE FERDINAND FOUND ALIVE -- FIRST WORLD WAR A MISTAKE
Jeremy Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
>> Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>>> If there aren't objections then we plan commit patch tomorrow or
>>> after tomorrow.
>> I still haven't heard any argument for why this would be necessary or
>> desirable at all, other than that it looks better for marketing
>> reasons, which I will counter by saying that it looks worse for
>> marketing reasons because our hailed plugin mechanism is apparently so
>> poor that it can't support some practical extension module such as
>> this.
>
> I for one am greatly looking forward to tsearch2 being in core. I was
> very fond of the plugin mechanism, until I signed up with a hosting
> provider. I do not have superuser privileges on the database cluster, and
> they will not install any plugins due to unspecified "security concerns".
You could move to Hub or Command Prompt ;)
Joshua D. Drake
> So ATM if I want full text indexing, my only choice would be to avail
> myself of their mysql instance which has it built in. So I have been
> jaded, and my opinion of optional plugins has gone from "wow, this is
> neat" to "man, this is a pain". They do not install plpgsql so I cannot
> write any triggers, they don't install tsearch2 so I don't get full text
> indexing, so all of the great features of postgres I have come to enjoy on
> my own box are suddenly taken away :(
>
> Sorry for the rant, I am just looking forward to 8.3 so I could get full
> text indexing...
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 13:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > 2) once we put this in core we are going to be stuck with supporting its > SQL API forever. Are we convinced that this API is the one we want? > I don't recall even having seen any proposal or discussion. There has been some prior discussion: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-12/msg00919.php But I agree that we need considerably more discussion before committing the patch. I'm personally not sold on the need for modifications to the SQL grammar, for example, as opposed to just using a set of SQL-callable functions and some new system catalogs. Another question that would be easier to resolve before the patch is committed is naming: the patch currently uses a mix of "full text" and "tsearch[2]" as the name of the full-text search feature. If we're going to bless this as "the" integrated full-text search in PG, it might make more sense to use "full text search" and "FTS" exclusively. -Neil
Jeremy Drake wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> I still haven't heard any argument for why this would be necessary or >> desirable at all, other than that it looks better for marketing >> reasons, which I will counter by saying that it looks worse for >> marketing reasons because our hailed plugin mechanism is apparently so >> poor that it can't support some practical extension module such as >> this. >> > > I for one am greatly looking forward to tsearch2 being in core. > > For goodness' sake! This is work that's been sponsored! Are we going to turn around now and reject it? We'd be a laughing stock. cheers andrew
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > contrib is a horrible misnomer. Can we maybe bite the bullet and call > it something else? plugins? -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Jeff Davis wrote: > On that point, why do we have /contrib? It's for "plugins" that are > so version-dependent that they can't exist as a separate project, as > I understand it. No. (I don't know a better and succinct answer, but that is not it.) -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Jeremy Drake wrote: > I for one am greatly looking forward to tsearch2 being in core. I > was very fond of the plugin mechanism, until I signed up with a > hosting provider. Yes, you have told us about your hosting provider before. Just make sure your next hosting provider does not refuse to install database objects whose OID is a multiple of 13 because of bad luck, or you might miss out on full-text indexing again. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Jeremy Drake wrote:
>> I for one am greatly looking forward to tsearch2 being in core. I
>> was very fond of the plugin mechanism, until I signed up with a
>> hosting provider.
>
> Yes, you have told us about your hosting provider before. Just make
> sure your next hosting provider does not refuse to install database
> objects whose OID is a multiple of 13 because of bad luck, or you might
> miss out on full-text indexing again.
Well we just turn off OIDs to help prevent that possible curse.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
Neil Conway wrote: > But I agree that we need considerably more discussion before > committing the patch. I'm personally not sold on the need for > modifications to the SQL grammar, for example, as opposed to just > using a set of SQL-callable functions and some new system catalogs. In particular, I would think that unless one is affiliated with The New COBOL World Order, one would *prefer* a set of functions over new SQL statements. And using functions to manage extensions seems to be the established way in Oracle land, if that matters at all. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Neil Conway wrote: > On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 13:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> 2) once we put this in core we are going to be stuck with supporting its >> SQL API forever. Are we convinced that this API is the one we want? >> I don't recall even having seen any proposal or discussion. > > There has been some prior discussion: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-12/msg00919.php > > But I agree that we need considerably more discussion before committing > the patch. I'm personally not sold on the need for modifications to the > SQL grammar, for example, as opposed to just using a set of SQL-callable > functions and some new system catalogs. I think one can find arguments for both variants - one of the question might even be how other databases are doing that and if the proposed syntax is resembling one of those or not. > > Another question that would be easier to resolve before the patch is > committed is naming: the patch currently uses a mix of "full text" and > "tsearch[2]" as the name of the full-text search feature. If we're going > to bless this as "the" integrated full-text search in PG, it might make > more sense to use "full text search" and "FTS" exclusively. making this consistent makes a lot of sense and I agree that it might be a good idea to just call it FTS (or similiar). But on the other side would have to go as far as renaming TSVECTOR/TSQUERY to FTSVECTOR/FTSQUERY or similiar which might pose some considerable headache for people upgrading from the contrib/ version. Stefan
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> contrib is a horrible misnomer. Can we maybe bite the bullet and call >> it something else? >> > > plugins? > > standard-plugins might be more informative. I think of them as being like perl's standard modules, things that are part of the standard perl distribution as opposed to all the other stuff on CPAN. Maybe it needs to split into two - things that are genuine plugins and other stuff (e.g. start-scripts). cheers andrew
Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> writes:
> Neil Conway wrote:
>> Another question that would be easier to resolve before the patch is
>> committed is naming: the patch currently uses a mix of "full text" and
>> "tsearch[2]" as the name of the full-text search feature. If we're going
>> to bless this as "the" integrated full-text search in PG, it might make
>> more sense to use "full text search" and "FTS" exclusively.
> making this consistent makes a lot of sense and I agree that it might be
> a good idea to just call it FTS (or similiar).
> But on the other side would have to go as far as renaming
> TSVECTOR/TSQUERY to FTSVECTOR/FTSQUERY or similiar which might pose some
> considerable headache for people upgrading from the contrib/ version.
If we use "text search" (abbrev TS) as the key phrase we can avoid that.
But this reiterates my point that the upgrade path for existing tsearch2
users is an important thing to consider.
regards, tom lane
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Jeremy Drake wrote: >> I for one am greatly looking forward to tsearch2 being in core. I >> was very fond of the plugin mechanism, until I signed up with a >> hosting provider. > > Yes, you have told us about your hosting provider before. Just make > sure your next hosting provider does not refuse to install database > objects whose OID is a multiple of 13 because of bad luck, or you might > miss out on full-text indexing again. sure that ISP is a bit stupid(especially wrt plpgsql) - but tsearch2 in the current version is actually imposing some additional(often non-trivial) complexity for things like database restores and upgrades so I can see an ISP wanting to avoid that altogether. A fully integrated fulltext search could make that much easier(in a few years when most distributions have picked up 8.3) and just telling people they should switch their hosting ISP is not always an immediatly workable solution (think contracts,migration costs,legacy apps). Stefan
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> Where on the website can I see what "plugins" are included with >> PostgreSQL? YES! That's IMHO a more fundamental problem. The specific question about Text Search seems more like a symptom. While I don't mind Text Search in core, it seems an even bigger deal that it's hard to find information on extensions (whether from contrib or from gborg or from external places like postgis). A web page with a table easily visible on the postgresql web site that had Extension (i.e. tsearch2, postgis) Project Maturity (i.e. alpha/beta/stable) Compatability (i.e. extension 1.0 works with postgresql 8.2) Description (i.e. "full text search") URL would be a partial fix. > contrib is a horrible misnomer. Can we maybe bite the bullet and call it > something else? +1 How about "plugins" or "extensions" or "optional libraries".
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > sure that ISP is a bit stupid(especially wrt plpgsql) - but tsearch2 > in the current version is actually imposing some additional(often > non-trivial) complexity for things like database restores and > upgrades so I can see an ISP wanting to avoid that altogether. I have never used tsearch2 across an upgrade, so what exactly are those problems and why would they be specific to tsearch2? -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>> sure that ISP is a bit stupid(especially wrt plpgsql) - but tsearch2
>> in the current version is actually imposing some additional(often
>> non-trivial) complexity for things like database restores and
>> upgrades so I can see an ISP wanting to avoid that altogether.
>
> I have never used tsearch2 across an upgrade, so what exactly are those
> problems and why would they be specific to tsearch2?
Tsearch2 changes things occasionally from release to release which make
upgrades impossible with a standard pg_dump/pg_restore. I would have to
double check (because I always work around the problem now) but IIRC
there have been function call changes that are different from one
release to the next.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> I think one can find arguments for both variants - one of the
> question might even be how other databases are doing that and if the
> proposed syntax is resembling one of those or not.
The closest I could find is Oracle Text, the full-text search for
Oracle. Browsing the documentation I see things like
exec ctx_ddl.create_preference('myjlexer','japanese_lexer');
exec ctx_ddl.add_stopword('globallist','the','French');
which look pretty similar to what a procedure-based interface to
tsearch2 could look like.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
I wrote: > The closest I could find is Oracle Text, the full-text search for > Oracle. Oh, and note that Oracle Text is an "extension" and not included in the Oracle database product proper. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I wrote:
>> The closest I could find is Oracle Text, the full-text search for
>> Oracle.
>
> Oh, and note that Oracle Text is an "extension" and not included in the
> Oracle database product proper.
Cool. Then we will have yet another reason to claim we are superior.
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > I wrote: > >> The closest I could find is Oracle Text, the full-text search for > >> Oracle. > > > > Oh, and note that Oracle Text is an "extension" and not included in the > > Oracle database product proper. > > Cool. Then we will have yet another reason to claim we are superior. It's probably separate just so they can charge extra for it ;-) In our case it's going to be free either way. In any case, I agree with Andrew that it would be pretty dumb to reject a funded, already written patch. If people had a problem with integrating tsearch2 in core they should have said so much earlier. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 18:38 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > In any case, I agree with Andrew that it would be pretty dumb to reject > a funded, already written patch. Well, there are two separate issues: should we include tsearch2 in core, and what syntax should it use? Changing the syntax would not require rejecting the entire patch. > If people had a problem with integrating tsearch2 in core they should > have said so much earlier. Peter, Tom and others raised essentially identical objections when this design was initially proposed. For example: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-11/msg00392.php http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-11/msg00405.php http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-11/msg00437.php http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-11/msg00397.php Was a consensus reached in that thread? (I didn't see one, but perhaps I've overlooked a mail.) -Neil
Neil Conway wrote: >> If people had a problem with integrating tsearch2 in core they should >> have said so much earlier. >> > > Peter, Tom and others raised essentially identical objections when this > design was initially proposed. For example: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-11/msg00392.php > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-11/msg00405.php > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-11/msg00437.php > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-11/msg00397.php > > Was a consensus reached in that thread? (I didn't see one, but perhaps > I've overlooked a mail.) > > IIRC Tom's main objection to the previous proposal was that it involved large grammar changes, which I understand is not now proposed. The way I read that thread was that there was no strenuous objection apart from the grammar parts. Certainly I think we can still argue about details, such as the functional API. cheers andrew
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> IIRC Tom's main objection to the previous proposal was that it involved
> large grammar changes, which I understand is not now proposed.
No, they're already in there --- the patch seems to have been written
according to that proposal despite the objections.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 09:38:06PM +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > sure that ISP is a bit stupid(especially wrt plpgsql) - but tsearch2 in > the current version is actually imposing some additional(often > non-trivial) complexity for things like database restores and upgrades > so I can see an ISP wanting to avoid that altogether. Something I've wondered about before is the concept of having installed Modules in the system. Let's say for example that while compiling postgres it compiled the modules in contrib also and installed them in a modules directory. Once installed there, unpriviledged users could say "INSTALL foo" and it would install the module, even if they do not have the permissions to create them themselves. That way you don't clutter the catalogs with external projects, and there is some indication from the postgres team of some trust in these modules. After all, if the installation made it easy to use for users, it must be safe, right? Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > >> IIRC Tom's main objection to the previous proposal was that it involved >> large grammar changes, which I understand is not now proposed. >> > > No, they're already in there --- the patch seems to have been written > according to that proposal despite the objections. > > > Oh. ouch. That seems strange given this query from Oleg back on 18 Nov: > So, if we'll not touch grammar, are there any issues with tsearch2 in core ? cheers andrew
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 09:38:06PM +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > > sure that ISP is a bit stupid(especially wrt plpgsql) - but tsearch2 in > > the current version is actually imposing some additional(often > > non-trivial) complexity for things like database restores and upgrades > > so I can see an ISP wanting to avoid that altogether. > > Something I've wondered about before is the concept of having installed > Modules in the system. Let's say for example that while compiling > postgres it compiled the modules in contrib also and installed them in > a modules directory. > > Once installed there, unpriviledged users could say "INSTALL foo" and > it would install the module, even if they do not have the permissions > to create them themselves. That would be great, and also it would be great to be able to CREATE LANGUAGE as a regular user for a trusted pl that is already compiled/installed. > > That way you don't clutter the catalogs with external projects, and > there is some indication from the postgres team of some trust in these > modules. After all, if the installation made it easy to use for users, > it must be safe, right? Essentially, I think they are just pretty reluctant to run commands as a superuser on behalf of a user... -- It is better never to have been born. But who among us has such luck? One in a million, perhaps.
[ redirecting thread from -patches to -hackers for wider comment ]
Jeremy Drake <pgsql@jdrake.com> writes:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Note I'm not arguing against allowing it to be "on" by default, I just
>> want to be sure there is a way for paranoid DBAs to turn it off. Maybe
>> it'd be sufficient if the flag bit was there but "UPDATE pg_pltemplate"
>> was the only way to manipulate it --- we've gotten along with treating
>> datistemplate and datallowconn that way.
> That sounds reasonable to me. I'll try to put together a patch like this
> (adding a boolean column to pg_pltemplate) and see if this is acceptable.
> I assume that only superusers can modify pg_pltemplate already ;)
I had a further thought about this: if we allow random users to create
languages, then without any further tweaking the instance of the
language in their DB would be owned by them and they could grant or deny
USAGE on it to others in their DB. This is probably not good. Given
the current structure of pg_language, a language is effectively a
one-time-per-DB resource and so random users could obstruct others from
using a language.
Perhaps it'd make sense to limit this to the DB owner, who would then be
able to grant or deny language usage to the other users in his database.
In detail, it'd look something like:
* For an untrusted language: must be superuser to either create or use
the language (no change from current rules). Ownership of the
pg_language entry is really irrelevant, as is its ACL.
* For a trusted language:
* if pg_pltemplate.something is ON: either a superuser or the current
DB's owner can CREATE the language. In either case the pg_language
entry will be marked as owned by the DB owner (pg_database.datdba),
which means that subsequently he (or a superuser) can grant or deny
USAGE within his DB.
* if pg_pltemplate.something is OFF: must be superuser to CREATE the
language; subsequently it will be owned by you, so only you or another
superuser can grant or deny USAGE (same behavior as currently).
Comments? The bit about assigning the datdba as the owner might seem
a bit odd, but I'm worried about the case where someone has the DBA
privilege as a role but issues the create under his own ID. If it's
owned directly by him, you'd end up in a situation where other holders
of the DBA role couldn't manipulate the language, which seems
undesirable.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Tom Lane wrote: > [ redirecting thread from -patches to -hackers for wider comment ] > > Jeremy Drake <pgsql@jdrake.com> writes: > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Note I'm not arguing against allowing it to be "on" by default, I just > >> want to be sure there is a way for paranoid DBAs to turn it off. Maybe > >> it'd be sufficient if the flag bit was there but "UPDATE pg_pltemplate" > >> was the only way to manipulate it --- we've gotten along with treating > >> datistemplate and datallowconn that way. > > > That sounds reasonable to me. I'll try to put together a patch like this > > (adding a boolean column to pg_pltemplate) and see if this is acceptable. > > I assume that only superusers can modify pg_pltemplate already ;) > > I had a further thought about this: if we allow random users to create > languages, then without any further tweaking the instance of the > language in their DB would be owned by them and they could grant or deny > USAGE on it to others in their DB. This is probably not good. Given > the current structure of pg_language, a language is effectively a > one-time-per-DB resource and so random users could obstruct others from > using a language. > > Perhaps it'd make sense to limit this to the DB owner, who would then be > able to grant or deny language usage to the other users in his database. > I am digging through the code looking at this, and I have a question. As far as I can tell, there is currently no owner for a pg_language entry. Is this correct or is ownership information stored somewhere other than the pg_language relation? Are you suggesting that a lanowner column would need to be added? As far as the column name referred to below as "pg_pltemplate.something", for now I am calling it tmpldbaallowed. I am not particularly attached to nor fond of that name, however, and am open to naming suggestions. > In detail, it'd look something like: > > * For an untrusted language: must be superuser to either create or use > the language (no change from current rules). Ownership of the > pg_language entry is really irrelevant, as is its ACL. > > * For a trusted language: > > * if pg_pltemplate.something is ON: either a superuser or the current > DB's owner can CREATE the language. In either case the pg_language > entry will be marked as owned by the DB owner (pg_database.datdba), > which means that subsequently he (or a superuser) can grant or deny > USAGE within his DB. > > * if pg_pltemplate.something is OFF: must be superuser to CREATE the > language; subsequently it will be owned by you, so only you or another > superuser can grant or deny USAGE (same behavior as currently). > > Comments? The bit about assigning the datdba as the owner might seem > a bit odd, but I'm worried about the case where someone has the DBA > privilege as a role but issues the create under his own ID. If it's > owned directly by him, you'd end up in a situation where other holders > of the DBA role couldn't manipulate the language, which seems > undesirable. > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at > > http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate > > -- Save the Whales -- Harpoon a Honda.
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Jeremy Drake wrote: > I am digging through the code looking at this, and I have a question. As > far as I can tell, there is currently no owner for a pg_language entry. > Is this correct or is ownership information stored somewhere other than > the pg_language relation? Are you suggesting that a lanowner column would > need to be added? > Sort of answered my own question, found this comment:* Note: for now, languages are treated as owned by the bootstrap* user.We should add an owner column to pg_language instead. So in the course of implementing this, an owner column would probably need to be added to pg_language, I guess. -- If a 6600 used paper tape instead of core memory, it would use up tape at about 30 miles/second. -- Grishman, Assembly Language Programming
Jeremy Drake <pgsql@jdrake.com> writes:
>> I am digging through the code looking at this, and I have a question. As
>> far as I can tell, there is currently no owner for a pg_language entry.
Er, doh.
> Sort of answered my own question, found this comment:
> * Note: for now, languages are treated as owned by the bootstrap
> * user. We should add an owner column to pg_language instead.
> So in the course of implementing this, an owner column would probably need
> to be added to pg_language, I guess.
If you believe my idea that the DB owner ought to have special privilege
in this regard, then probably yes. Alternatively, we could hard-wire
the treatment of the DB owner.
regards, tom lane
Hi there, sorry, if I will a bit verbose - just tried to answer to several postings. On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Tom Lane wrote: >> Teodor Sigaev wrote: >>> If there aren't objections then we plan commit patch tomorrow or >>> after tomorrow. > > This is a fairly large patch and I would like the chance to review it > before it goes in --- "we'll commit tomorrow" is not exactly a decent > review window. > I see your argument, no problem with that. We intentionally announced its availability several weeks ago. > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: >> I still haven't heard any argument for why this would be necessary or >> desirable at all, other than that it looks better for marketing >> reasons, > > One possible argument for this over the contrib version is a saner > approach to dumping and restoring configurations. However, as against > that: > > 1) what's the upgrade path for getting an existing tsearch2 > configuration into this implementation? this is a real question and we will prepare UPGRADE notes. > > 2) once we put this in core we are going to be stuck with supporting its > SQL API forever. Are we convinced that this API is the one we want? > I don't recall even having seen any proposal or discussion. It was OK > for tsearch2's API to change every release while it was in contrib, but > the expectation of stability is a whole lot higher for core features. If you're talking about SQL and psql commands, than they are new and we tried to be consistent with existing approach to manage system objects. Any inconsistence we'd be happy to discuss and improve. I don't remember we changed operators and function for a long time, so users of tsearch2 should not be confused. After all, our intention is to meet user's wish to have FTS in PostgreSQL and nothing more. We several times wrote in mailing list that it's too early to move tsearch2 to the pg core, since we consider (that time) it has some scalability problem. GiN was specially developed to solve this problem and it did it. It's de facto standard to have FTS in modern database and it has no difference how you call it - plugin, extension, contrib module or built-in. It's infair to compare approach of commercial DB with postgres, since they have their own marketing police - they charge separately for every extension ! Our usual peer - MySQL has built-in FTS, for example, and I don't see any objections to not have an additional argument for our PR people, since our FTS is a way better. I agree, that requirements for core features should be stronger that for contrib module, especially, for the stability of API. So, let us discuss it. We are open for suggestions for about 6 years :) I Regards, Oleg _____________________________________________________________ Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru), Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/ phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Neil Conway wrote: > On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 13:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> 2) once we put this in core we are going to be stuck with supporting its >> SQL API forever. Are we convinced that this API is the one we want? >> I don't recall even having seen any proposal or discussion. > > There has been some prior discussion: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-12/msg00919.php > > But I agree that we need considerably more discussion before committing > the patch. I'm personally not sold on the need for modifications to the > SQL grammar, for example, as opposed to just using a set of SQL-callable > functions and some new system catalogs. > > Another question that would be easier to resolve before the patch is > committed is naming: the patch currently uses a mix of "full text" and > "tsearch[2]" as the name of the full-text search feature. If we're going > to bless this as "the" integrated full-text search in PG, it might make > more sense to use "full text search" and "FTS" exclusively. We tried to use full-text search (FTS) in the documentation http://mira.sai.msu.su/~megera/pgsql/ftsdoc/index.html. Tsearch[2] used just for historical notes, which may not go to the official documentation. Regards, Oleg _____________________________________________________________ Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru), Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/ phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:27:10 +0100, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > I wrote: >> The closest I could find is Oracle Text, the full-text search for >> Oracle. > > Oh, and note that Oracle Text is an "extension" and not included in the > Oracle database product proper. > Same with DB2 NSE, IBM's fulltext search engine for their UDB. However, they employ external admin tools like db2text to create, configure and alter fulltext indexes (like slonik for example). Textsearch could be done with functions (contains()) in SQL. Bernd
On 1/24/07, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> contrib is a horrible misnomer. Can we maybe bite the bullet and call > >> it something else? > > plugins? How about 'modules' or 'extras' or 'extensions'? :) > standard-plugins might be more informative. I think of them as being > like perl's standard modules, things that are part of the standard perl > distribution as opposed to all the other stuff on CPAN. Personally, I don't quite like 'plugins'. it may be that when I think of plugins, I think of 'GIMP plugins'. ;) And I think hosting providers would exclude plugins almost as often as they do with contrib. "They are not 'core' so it's safe to exclude them" Same with 'extras' or 'extensions' -- they seem to imply that you can do without them. This is the reason I like 'modules' best. It makes one think that it is something maybe part of core, maybe not, but it has been isolated into separate entity for maintenance reasons. My EUR 0.02 Regards, Dawid
Dawid Kuroczko wrote: > This is the reason I like 'modules' best. It makes one think that it > is something maybe part of core, maybe not, but it has been isolated > into separate entity for maintenance reasons. On etymological grounds, "modules" would also be my favorite, but the term "module" is already used in the SQL standard for something different. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
> This is a fairly large patch and I would like the chance to review it
> before it goes in --- "we'll commit tomorrow" is not exactly a decent
> review window.
Not a problem.
> One possible argument for this over the contrib version is a saner
> approach to dumping and restoring configurations. However, as against
> that:
>
> 1) what's the upgrade path for getting an existing tsearch2
> configuration into this implementation?
It's should clear enough for now - dump data from old db and load into new one.
But dump should be without any contrib/tsearch2 related functions.
>
> 2) once we put this in core we are going to be stuck with supporting its
> SQL API forever. Are we convinced that this API is the one we want?
> I don't recall even having seen any proposal or discussion. It was OK
> for tsearch2's API to change every release while it was in contrib, but
> the expectation of stability is a whole lot higher for core features.
Basic tsearch2 SQL API doesn't changed since its first release, just extended.
As I can see, there isn't any standard of fulltext search in SQL. DB/2, MS SQL,
Oracle and MySQL use different SQL API. I don't know which better. I remember
only one suggestion: 'CREATE FULLTEXT INDEX ...'. So, I believe, existing SQL
API satisfies users. But it possible to emulate on grammar level subset of MySQL
syntax:
SQL commands
CREATE FULLTEXT INDEX idxname ON tbl [ USING {GIN|GIST} ] ( field1[, [...]] );
SELECT .. FROM table WHERE MATCH( field1[, [...]] ) AGAINST ( txt );
will be translated to
CREATE INDEX idxname ON tbl [ USING {GIN|GIST} ] ( to_tsquery(field1)[ || [...]] );
SELECT .. FROM table WHERE ( to_tsquery(field1)[ || [...]] ) @@ plainto_tsquery(
txt );
Notes 1 that is full equivalent MySQL's MATCH() AGAINST (txt IN BOOLEAN MODE) 2 it requires to keyword MATCH &
AGAINSTwhich cannot be a function's name without quoting.
Internal API changed sometimes (not every release), but I don't see a problem
here: all other internal API's in postgres are often changed.
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
> the patch. I'm personally not sold on the need for modifications to the > SQL grammar, for example, as opposed to just using a set of SQL-callable > functions and some new system catalogs. SQL grammar isn't changed significantly - just add variants of CREATE/DROP/ALTER /COMMENTS commands. Next, functions haven't autocomplete feature or built-in quick help - if you don't remember exactly kind/type of argument(s) of function then you should read a docs. -- Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>> the patch. I'm personally not sold on the need for modifications to the
>> SQL grammar, for example, as opposed to just using a set of SQL-callable
>> functions and some new system catalogs.
>
> SQL grammar isn't changed significantly - just add variants of
> CREATE/DROP/ALTER /COMMENTS commands. Next, functions haven't
> autocomplete feature or built-in quick help - if you don't remember
> exactly kind/type of argument(s) of function then you should read a docs.
I didn't read the patch but I did skim the docs for this and if the docs
are current I see things like this:
CREATE FULLTEXT DICTIONARY en_ispell
( OPT = 'DictFile="ispell/english.dict", AffFile="ispell/english.aff", StopFile="english.stop"'
) LIKE ispell_template;
ALTER FULLTEXT DICTIONARY en_stem SET OPT='english.stop';
Which to me is perfectly reasonable and intuitive. It is unfortunate
though that we still have the more odd grammar of actually using Tsearch
to query. Although I don't really have a better suggestion without
adding some ungodly obscure operator.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
On 1/25/07, Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru> wrote: > It's should clear enough for now - dump data from old db and load into new one. > But dump should be without any contrib/tsearch2 related functions. Upgrading from 8.1.x to 8.2.x was not tivial because of very trivial change in API (actually not really API but the content of "pg_ts_*" tables): russian snowball stemming function was forked to 2 different ones, for koi8 and utf8 encodings. So, as I dumped my pg_ts_* tables data (to keep my tsearch2 settings), I saw errors during restoration (btw, why didn't you keep old russian stemmer function name as a synonym to koi8 variant?) -- so, I had to change my dump file manually, because I didn't manage to follow "tsearch2 best practices" (to use some kind of "bootstrap" script that creates tsearch2 configuration you need from default one -- using several INSERTs and UPDATEs). And there were no upgrade notes for tsearch2. So, I consider upgrading process for tsearch2 to be a little bit tricky till present. I assume it will be improved with 8.3... -- Best regards, Nikolay
> though that we still have the more odd grammar of actually using Tsearch > to query. Although I don't really have a better suggestion without > adding some ungodly obscure operator. IMHO, best possible solution is 'WHERE table.text_field @ text'. Operator @ internally makes equivalent of 'to_tsvector(table.text_field) @@ plainto_tsquery(text)', it's also possible to add GIN/GIST opclasses to speedup search queries. Performance of making headline in this case will be decreased insignificant, but ranking time will be disastrous. Because of reparsing of whole found texts. GIST performance may be decreased too - GIST indexing of tsvector is lossy. -- Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
> On 1/25/07, Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru> wrote:
>> It's should clear enough for now - dump data from old db and load into new
>> one.
>> But dump should be without any contrib/tsearch2 related functions.
>
> Upgrading from 8.1.x to 8.2.x was not tivial because of very trivial
> change in API (actually not really API but the content of "pg_ts_*"
> tables): russian snowball stemming function was forked to 2 different
> ones, for koi8 and utf8 encodings. So, as I dumped my pg_ts_* tables
> data (to keep my tsearch2 settings), I saw errors during restoration
> (btw, why didn't you keep old russian stemmer function name as a
> synonym to koi8 variant?) -- so, I had to change my dump file
> manually, because I didn't manage to follow "tsearch2 best practices"
sed and grep did the trick.
> (to use some kind of "bootstrap" script that creates tsearch2
> configuration you need from default one -- using several INSERTs and
> UPDATEs). And there were no upgrade notes for tsearch2.
This is unfair, you promised to write upgrade notes and we discussed the
problem with name change before release and I rely on you. It was my fault,
of course.
Regards, Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru),
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Tom Lane wrote: > * For an untrusted language: must be superuser to either create or use > the language (no change from current rules). Ownership of the > pg_language entry is really irrelevant, as is its ACL. > > * For a trusted language: > > * if pg_pltemplate.something is ON: either a superuser or the current > DB's owner can CREATE the language. In either case the pg_language > entry will be marked as owned by the DB owner (pg_database.datdba), > which means that subsequently he (or a superuser) can grant or deny > USAGE within his DB. What happens on ALTER DATABASE ALTER OWNER? Does the ownership of the language change to the new datdba or stay the old one? If the CREATE LANGUAGE results in creating the handler and validation funcs, who should own them? At the moment it is the user doing the CREATE LANGUAGE, but what does that mean? Can they then do odd things to the permissions of the procs, such as denying execute on them, to break other user's usage of the language, or does the perms on a language pre-empt the perms on the func? What happens if pg_pltemplate.something changes after the language is created? The datdba would continue to own the language, and can change permissions and drop it, but could not recreate it. I assume if the superuser wanted to revoke the ability for database owners to create that language they would remove it from people's databases who already have it. > > * if pg_pltemplate.something is OFF: must be superuser to CREATE the > language; subsequently it will be owned by you, so only you or another > superuser can grant or deny USAGE (same behavior as currently). What if pg_pltemplate.something is OFF, the language is CREATEd by a superuser, and then pg_pltemplate is set ON? The language is now owned by a superuser, so the db owner could not manipulate it. The patch I put together adds an owner to pg_language. Should there be an ALTER LANGUAGE OWNER TO command added as well. Thinking about these conditions I have described here, it seems to me there should be. Or there could not be an owner for a language and who the owner is depends on the conditions listed. But then permissions checks for languages would depend on pg_pltemplate, which seems less than clear or ideal to me. Besides which, when the acl is initalized from NULL to a value, it depends on who the owner is. It would need to be changed as well when the owner changing conditions change. I think that an ALTER LANGUAGE OWNER TO is the proper response to these things, and unless I hear otherwise I will attempt to add this to my patch. -- Checkuary, n.:The thirteenth month of the year. Begins New Year's Day and endswhen a person stops absentmindedly writingthe old year on his checks.
Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> I am constantly running into this: >> >> Q. Does PostgreSQL have full text indexing? >> A. Yes it is in contrib. >> Q. But that isn't part of core. >> A. *sigh* >> >> Where on the website can I see what "plugins" are included with >> PostgreSQL? >> >> Where on the website can I see the Official PostgreSQL Documentation for >> Full Text Indexing? >> >> With TSearch2 in core will that fix the many upgrade problems associated >> with using TSearch2? >> >> >> > > contrib is a horrible misnomer. Can we maybe bite the bullet and call > it something else? After years of PG use, I am still afraid to use contrib modules because it just *feels* like voodoo. I have spent much time reading this mailing list and on IRC with PG users, and I know that contrib modules are on the whole tested and safe, but the lack of web documentation and any indication of what they do other than "check the notes that come with the source" makes me just feel like they are "use and cross fingers" type thing. I don't know how hard it would be to implement, but perhaps contrib modules could be compiled in a similar way to Apache modules. E.g., ./configure --with-modulename with the onus for packaging them appropriately falling onto the shoulders of the module authors. I feel that even a basic module management system like this would greatly increase awareness of and confidence in the contrib modules. Oh, and +1 on renaming contrib +1 on the need for a comprehensive list of them +1 on the need for more doc on the website about each of them, onus falling on module authors, perhaps require at least a basic doc patch as a requirement for /contrib inclusion. - Naz
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews and approves it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Teodor Sigaev wrote: > We (Oleg and me) are glad to present tsearch in core of pgsql patch. In basic, > layout, functions, methods, types etc are the same as in current tsearch2 with a > lot of improvements: > > - pg_ts_* tables now are in pg_catalog > - parsers, dictionaries, configurations now have owner and namespace similar to > other pgsql's objects like tables, operator classes etc > - current tsearch configuration is managed with a help of GUC variable > tsearch_conf_name. > - choosing of tsearch cfg by locale may be done for each schema separately > - managing of tsearch configuration with a help of SQL commands, not with > insert/update/delete statements. This allows to drive dependencies, > correct dumping and dropping. > - psql support with a help of \dF* commands > - add all available Snowball stemmers and corresponding configuration > - correct memory freeing by any dictionary > > Work is sponsored by EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL Development Fund. > > patch: http://www.sigaev.ru/misc/tsearch_core-0.33.gz > docs: http://mira.sai.msu.su/~megera/pgsql/ftsdoc/ (not yet completed and it's > not yet a patch, just a SGML source) > > Implementation details: > - directory layout > src/backend/utils/adt/tsearch - all IO function and simple operations > src/backend/utils/tsearch - complex processing functions, including > language processing and dictionaries > - most of snowball dictionaries are placed in separate .so library and > they plug in into data base by similar way as character conversation > library does. > > If there aren't objections then we plan commit patch tomorrow or after tomorrow. > Before committing, I'll changes oids from 5000+ to lower values to prevent holes > in oids. And after that, I'll remove tsearch2 contrib module. > > -- > Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru > WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/ > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at > > http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
FYI, I added this to the patches queue because I think we decided full-text indexing should be in the core. If I am wrong, please let me know. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Teodor Sigaev wrote: > We (Oleg and me) are glad to present tsearch in core of pgsql patch. In basic, > layout, functions, methods, types etc are the same as in current tsearch2 with a > lot of improvements: > > - pg_ts_* tables now are in pg_catalog > - parsers, dictionaries, configurations now have owner and namespace similar to > other pgsql's objects like tables, operator classes etc > - current tsearch configuration is managed with a help of GUC variable > tsearch_conf_name. > - choosing of tsearch cfg by locale may be done for each schema separately > - managing of tsearch configuration with a help of SQL commands, not with > insert/update/delete statements. This allows to drive dependencies, > correct dumping and dropping. > - psql support with a help of \dF* commands > - add all available Snowball stemmers and corresponding configuration > - correct memory freeing by any dictionary > > Work is sponsored by EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL Development Fund. > > patch: http://www.sigaev.ru/misc/tsearch_core-0.33.gz > docs: http://mira.sai.msu.su/~megera/pgsql/ftsdoc/ (not yet completed and it's > not yet a patch, just a SGML source) > > Implementation details: > - directory layout > src/backend/utils/adt/tsearch - all IO function and simple operations > src/backend/utils/tsearch - complex processing functions, including > language processing and dictionaries > - most of snowball dictionaries are placed in separate .so library and > they plug in into data base by similar way as character conversation > library does. > > If there aren't objections then we plan commit patch tomorrow or after tomorrow. > Before committing, I'll changes oids from 5000+ to lower values to prevent holes > in oids. And after that, I'll remove tsearch2 contrib module. > > -- > Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru > WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/ > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at > > http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > FYI, I added this to the patches queue because I think we decided > full-text indexing should be in the core. If I am wrong, please let me > know. One of the objections I remember to this particular implementation was that configuration should be done using functions rather than new syntax in gram.y. This seems a good idea because it avoids bloating the grammar, while still allowing dependency tracking, pg_dump support, syscache support etc. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: >> >> FYI, I added this to the patches queue because I think we decided >> full-text indexing should be in the core. If I am wrong, please let me >> know. > > One of the objections I remember to this particular implementation was > that configuration should be done using functions rather than new syntax > in gram.y. This seems a good idea because it avoids bloating the > grammar, while still allowing dependency tracking, pg_dump support, > syscache support etc. It's not so big addition to the gram.y, see a list of commands http://mira.sai.msu.su/~megera/pgsql/ftsdoc/sql-commands.html. SQL commands make FTS syntax clear and follow tradition to manage system objects. From the user's side, I'd be very unhappy to configure FTS, which can be very complex, using functions. All we want is to provide users clear syntax. Regards, Oleg _____________________________________________________________ Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru), Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/ phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83
Oleg Bartunov wrote: > On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> > >> FYI, I added this to the patches queue because I think we decided > >> full-text indexing should be in the core. If I am wrong, please let me > >> know. > > > > One of the objections I remember to this particular implementation was > > that configuration should be done using functions rather than new syntax > > in gram.y. This seems a good idea because it avoids bloating the > > grammar, while still allowing dependency tracking, pg_dump support, > > syscache support etc. > > It's not so big addition to the gram.y, see a list of commands > http://mira.sai.msu.su/~megera/pgsql/ftsdoc/sql-commands.html. > SQL commands make FTS syntax clear and follow tradition to manage > system objects. From the user's side, I'd be very unhappy to configure > FTS, which can be very complex, using functions. All we want is to > provide users clear syntax. I looked at the diff file and the major change in gram.y is the creation of a new object type FULLTEXT, so you can CREATE, ALTER and DROP FULLTEXT. I don't know fulltext administration well enough, so if Oleg says a function API would be too complex, I am OK with his new parser syntax. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
> > It's not so big addition to the gram.y, see a list of commands > http://mira.sai.msu.su/~megera/pgsql/ftsdoc/sql-commands.html. > SQL commands make FTS syntax clear and follow tradition to manage > system objects. From the user's side, I'd be very unhappy to configure > FTS, which can be very complex, using functions. All we want is to > provide users clear syntax. This is like the third time we have been around this problem. The syntax is clear and reasonable imo. Can we stop arguing about it and just include? If there are specific issues beyond syntax that is one thing, but that this point it seems we are arguing for the sake of arguing. Joshua D. Drake
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > Oleg Bartunov wrote: >> It's not so big addition to the gram.y, see a list of commands >> http://mira.sai.msu.su/~megera/pgsql/ftsdoc/sql-commands.html. > I looked at the diff file and the major change in gram.y is the creation > of a new object type FULLTEXT, You mean four different object types. I'm not totally clear on bison's scaling behavior relative to the number of productions, but I think there's no question that this patch will impose a measurable distributed penalty on every single query issued to Postgres by any application, whether it's heard of tsearch or not. The percentage overhead would be a lot lower if the patch were introducing a similar number of entries into pg_proc. regards, tom lane
Hi, Tom Lane wrote: > You mean four different object types. I'm not totally clear on bison's > scaling behavior relative to the number of productions You really want to trade parser performance (which is *very* implementation specific) for ease of use? Bison generates a LALR [1] parser, which depend quite a bit on the number of productions. But AFAIK the dependency is mostly on memory consumption for the internal symbol sets, not so much on runtime complexity. I didn't find hard facts about runtime complexity of LALR, though (pointers are very welcome). Are there any ongoing efforts to rewrite the parser (i.e. using another algorithm, like a recursive descent parser)? Regards Markus [1]: Wikipedia on the LALR parsing algorithm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LALR_parser
Markus Schiltknecht wrote: > Hi, > > Tom Lane wrote: >> You mean four different object types. I'm not totally clear on bison's >> scaling behavior relative to the number of productions > > You really want to trade parser performance (which is *very* > implementation specific) for ease of use? > > Bison generates a LALR [1] parser, which depend quite a bit on the > number of productions. But AFAIK the dependency is mostly on memory > consumption for the internal symbol sets, not so much on runtime > complexity. I didn't find hard facts about runtime complexity of LALR, > though (pointers are very welcome). According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LR_parser processing one token in any LR(1) parser in the worst case needs to a) Do a lookup in the action table with the current (state, token) pairb) Do a lookup in the goto table with a (state, rule) pair. c) Push one state onto the stack, and pop n states with n being the number of symbols (tokens or other rules) on the right hand side of a rule. a) and b) should be O(1). Processing one token pushes at most one state onto the stack, so overall no more than N stats can be popped off again, making the whole algorithm O(N) with N being the number of tokens of the input stream. AFAIK the only difference between SLR, LALR and LR(1) lies in the generation of the goto and action tables. > Are there any ongoing efforts to rewrite the parser (i.e. using another > algorithm, like a recursive descent parser)? Why would you want to do that? greetings, Florian Pflug
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > > Oleg Bartunov wrote: > >> It's not so big addition to the gram.y, see a list of commands > >> http://mira.sai.msu.su/~megera/pgsql/ftsdoc/sql-commands.html. > > > I looked at the diff file and the major change in gram.y is the creation > > of a new object type FULLTEXT, > > You mean four different object types. I'm not totally clear on bison's > scaling behavior relative to the number of productions, but I think > there's no question that this patch will impose a measurable distributed > penalty on every single query issued to Postgres by any application, > whether it's heard of tsearch or not. The percentage overhead would > be a lot lower if the patch were introducing a similar number of entries > into pg_proc. My point is that the grammar splits off all the tsearch2 objects by prefixing them with CREATE FULLTEXT object, where there are four object types supported. But as others have pointed out, the performance of the grammar is probably not an issue in this case. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Hi, Florian G. Pflug wrote: > According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LR_parser processing one > token in any LR(1) parser in the worst case needs to > a) Do a lookup in the action table with the current (state, token) pair > b) Do a lookup in the goto table with a (state, rule) pair. > c) Push one state onto the stack, and pop n states with > n being the number of symbols (tokens or other rules) on the right > hand side of a rule. > > a) and b) should be O(1). Processing one token pushes at most one state > onto the stack, so overall no more than N stats can be popped off again, > making the whole algorithm O(N) with N being the number of tokens of the > input stream. Looks correct, thanks. What exactly is Tom worried about, then? >> Are there any ongoing efforts to rewrite the parser (i.e. using >> another algorithm, like a recursive descent parser)? > Why would you want to do that? I recall having read something about rewriting the parser. Together with Tom being worried about parser performance and knowing GCC has switched to a hand written parser some time ago, I suspected bison to be slow. That's why I've asked. Regards Markus
"Florian G. Pflug" <fgp@phlo.org> writes:
> Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
>> I didn't find hard facts about runtime complexity of LALR,
>> though (pointers are very welcome).
> a) and b) should be O(1). Processing one token pushes at most one state
> onto the stack, so overall no more than N stats can be popped off again,
> making the whole algorithm O(N) with N being the number of tokens of the
> input stream.
Yeah. I was concerned about the costs involved in trying to pack the
state tables, but it appears that that cost is all paid when the grammar
is compiled --- looking into gram.c, it appears the inner loop contains
just simple array lookups. Still, bloating of the state tables is
something we ought to pay attention to, because there's a distributed
cost once they no longer fit in a processor's L1 cache. On my machine
"size gram.o" is over 360K already ...
regards, tom lane
Markus Schiltknecht wrote:<br /><blockquote cite="mid45DC57EC.1010909@bluegap.ch" type="cite">Hi, <br /><br /> I recallhaving read something about rewriting the parser. Together with Tom being worried about parser performance and knowingGCC has switched to a hand written parser some time ago, I suspected bison to be slow. That's why I've asked. <br/><br /></blockquote> This has little to do with performance and everything to do with the insanity which is C++:<br /><aclass="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://gnu.teleglobe.net/software/gcc/gcc-3.4/changes.html">http://gnu.teleglobe.net/software/gcc/gcc-3.4/changes.html</a><br /><br/><blockquote type="cite"><ul><li>A hand-written recursive-descent C++ parser has replaced the YACC-derived C++ parserfrom previous GCC releases. The new parser contains much improved infrastructure needed for better parsing of C++ sourcecodes, handling of extensions, and clean separation (where possible) between proper semantics analysis and parsing.The new parser fixes many bugs that were found in the old parser. </ul></blockquote><br /> Short form: C++ is basicallynot LALR(1) parseable.<br /><br /> Brian<br /><br />
Markus Schiltknecht wrote: >>> Are there any ongoing efforts to rewrite the parser (i.e. using >>> another algorithm, like a recursive descent parser)? >> Why would you want to do that? > > I recall having read something about rewriting the parser. Together with > Tom being worried about parser performance and knowing GCC has switched > to a hand written parser some time ago, I suspected bison to be slow. > That's why I've asked. I think the case is different for C and C++. The grammars of C and C++ appear to be much more parser-friendly then SQL, making handcrafting a parser easier I'd think. And I believe that one of the reasons gcc wasn't happy with bison was that I limited the quality of their error reporting - which isn't that much of a problem for SQL, since SQL statements are rather short compared to your typical C/C++ source file. Last, but not least, the C and C++ syntax is basically set in stone - At least now the g++ supports nearly all (or all? don't know) of the C++ standard. So it doesn't really matter if changes to the parse are a bit more work, because the rarely happen. Postgres seems to add new features that change the grammar with every release (with is a good thing!). greetings, Florian Pflug
"Florian G. Pflug" <fgp@phlo.org> writes:
> Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
>>> Are there any ongoing efforts to rewrite the parser (i.e. using
>>> another algorithm, like a recursive descent parser)?
>> Why would you want to do that?
> Last, but not least, the C and C++ syntax is basically set in stone - At
> least now the g++ supports nearly all (or all? don't know) of the C++
> standard. So it doesn't really matter if changes to the parse are a bit
> more work, because the rarely happen. Postgres seems to add new features
> that change the grammar with every release (with is a good thing!).
Yeah. I think it would be a pretty bad idea for us to go over to a
handwritten parser: not only greater implementation effort for grammar
changes, but greater risk of introducing bugs. Bison tells you about it
when you've written something ambiguous ...
regards, tom lane
Oleg Bartunov wrote: > It's not so big addition to the gram.y, see a list of commands > http://mira.sai.msu.su/~megera/pgsql/ftsdoc/sql-commands.html. In that proposed syntax, I would drop all "=", ",", "(", and ")". They don't seem necessary and they are untypical for SQL commands. I'd compare with CREATE FUNCTION or CREATE SEQUENCE for SQL commands that do similar things. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > This is like the third time we have been around this problem. The > syntax is clear and reasonable imo. But others have differing opinions. > Can we stop arguing about it and just include? If there are specific > issues beyond syntax that is one > thing, but that this point it seems we are arguing for the sake of > arguing. How is that worse than wanting to abort the discussion for the sake of aborting the discussion? -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Oleg Bartunov wrote: >> It's not so big addition to the gram.y, see a list of commands >> http://mira.sai.msu.su/~megera/pgsql/ftsdoc/sql-commands.html. > > In that proposed syntax, I would drop all "=", ",", "(", and ")". They > don't seem necessary and they are untypical for SQL commands. I'd > compare with CREATE FUNCTION or CREATE SEQUENCE for SQL commands that > do similar things. that looks reasonable. Regards, Oleg _____________________________________________________________ Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru), Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/ phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83
Hi, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Oleg Bartunov wrote: >> It's not so big addition to the gram.y, see a list of commands >> http://mira.sai.msu.su/~megera/pgsql/ftsdoc/sql-commands.html. As we still to still discuss the syntax: is there a proposal for how a function based syntax would look like? CREATE FULLTEXT CONFIGURATION myfts LIKE template_cfg AS DEFAULT; just seems so much more SQL-like than: SELECT add_fulltext_config('myfts', 'template_cfg', True); I admit, that's a very simple and not thought through example. But as long as those who prefer not to extend the grammar don't come up with a better alternative syntax, one easily gets the impression that extending the grammar in general is evil. > In that proposed syntax, I would drop all "=", ",", "(", and ")". They > don't seem necessary and they are untypical for SQL commands. I'd > compare with CREATE FUNCTION or CREATE SEQUENCE for SQL commands that > do similar things. Yup, I'd second that. Regards Markus
> In that proposed syntax, I would drop all "=", ",", "(", and ")". They
> don't seem necessary and they are untypical for SQL commands. I'd
> compare with CREATE FUNCTION or CREATE SEQUENCE for SQL commands that
> do similar things.
I was looking at CREATE TYPE mostly. With removing "=", ",", "(", and ")" in
CREATE/ALTER FULLTEXT it's needed to add several items in unreserved_keyword
list. And increase gram.y by adding new rules similar to OptRoleList instead of
simple opt_deflist:'(' def_list ')' { $$ = $2; } | /*EMPTY*/ { $$ = NIL; } ;
Is it acceptable?
List of new keywords is: LOCALE, LEXIZE, INIT, OPT, GETTOKEN, LEXTYPES, HEADLINE
So, syntax will be
CREATE FULLTEXT DICTIONARY dictname LEXIZE lexize_function [ INIT init_function ] [ OPT opt_text ];
CREATE FULLTEXT DICTIONARY dictname [ { LEXIZE lexize_function | INIT init_function | OPT opt_text } [...] ]
LIKE template_dictname;
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
> CREATE FULLTEXT CONFIGURATION myfts LIKE template_cfg AS DEFAULT;
> SELECT add_fulltext_config('myfts', 'template_cfg', True);
That's simple, but what about
CREATE FULLTEXT MAPPING ON cfgname FOR lexemetypename[, ...] WITH dictname1[, ...];
?
SELECT create_fulltext_mapping(cfgname, '{lexemetypename[, ...]}'::text[],'{dictname1[, ...]}'::text[]);
Seems rather ugly for me...
And function interface does not provide autocompletion and online help in psql.
\df says only types of arguments, not a meaning.
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>> In that proposed syntax, I would drop all "=", ",", "(", and ")".
>> They don't seem necessary and they are untypical for SQL commands.
>> I'd compare with CREATE FUNCTION or CREATE SEQUENCE for SQL commands
>> that do similar things.
>
> I was looking at CREATE TYPE mostly. With removing "=", ",", "(", and
> ")" in CREATE/ALTER FULLTEXT it's needed to add several items in
> unreserved_keyword list. And increase gram.y by adding new rules
> similar to OptRoleList instead of
> simple opt_deflist:
> '(' def_list ')' { $$ = $2; }
> | /*EMPTY*/ { $$ = NIL; }
> ;
>
> Is it acceptable?
> List of new keywords is: LOCALE, LEXIZE, INIT, OPT, GETTOKEN,
> LEXTYPES, HEADLINE
>
> So, syntax will be
> CREATE FULLTEXT DICTIONARY dictname
> LEXIZE lexize_function
> [ INIT init_function ]
> [ OPT opt_text ];
>
> CREATE FULLTEXT DICTIONARY dictname
> [ { LEXIZE lexize_function | INIT init_function | OPT opt_text }
> [...] ]
> LIKE template_dictname;
>
If we are worried about the size of the transition table and keeping it
in cache (see remarks from Tom upthread) then adding more keywords seems
a bad idea, as it will surely expand the table. OTOH, I'd hate to make
that a design criterion. My main worry has been that the grammar would
be stable.
Just to quantify all this, I did a quick check on the grammar using
bison -v - we appear to have 473 terminal symbols, and 420 non-terminal
sybols in 1749 rules, generating 3142 states. The biggest tables
generated are yytable and yycheck, each about 90kb on my machine.
cheers
andrew
> CREATE FULLTEXT CONFIGURATION myfts LIKE template_cfg AS DEFAULT;
> SELECT add_fulltext_config('myfts', 'template_cfg', True);
>That's simple, but what about
>CREATE FULLTEXT MAPPING ON cfgname FOR lexemetypename[, ...] WITH
>dictname1[, ...];
>?
>
>SELECT create_fulltext_mapping(cfgname, '{lexemetypename[, ...]}'::text[],
> '{dictname1[, ...]}'::text[]);
>
>Seems rather ugly for me...
Functions maybe doesn't see efective, but user's cannot learn new syntax.
SELECT create_fulltext_mapping(cfgname, ARRAY['lex..','..'], ARRAY['...'])
is readable.
I agree so enhancing parser oabout not standard construct isn't good.
>And function interface does not provide autocompletion and online help in
>psql. \df says only types of arguments, not a meaning.
Yes, I miss better support function in psql too. But it's different topic. I
don't see reason why
\h cannot support better functions.
Nice a day
Pavel Stehule
_________________________________________________________________
Emotikony a pozadi programu MSN Messenger ozivi vasi konverzaci.
http://messenger.msn.cz/
Hi, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > If we are worried about the size of the transition table and keeping it > in cache (see remarks from Tom upthread) then adding more keywords seems > a bad idea, as it will surely expand the table. OTOH, I'd hate to make > that a design criterion. Yeah, me too. Especially because it's an implementation issue against ease of use. (Or can somebody convince me that functions would provide a simple interface?) > My main worry has been that the grammar would > be stable. You mean stability of the grammar for the new additions or for all the grammar? Why are you worried about that? > Just to quantify all this, I did a quick check on the grammar using > bison -v - we appear to have 473 terminal symbols, and 420 non-terminal > sybols in 1749 rules, generating 3142 states. The biggest tables > generated are yytable and yycheck, each about 90kb on my machine. That already sounds somewhat better that Tom's 300 kb. And considering that these caches most probably grow faster than our grammar... Regards Markus
Hi, Pavel Stehule wrote: > Functions maybe doesn't see efective, but user's cannot learn new syntax. Are you serious? That argument speaks exactly *for* extending the grammar. From other databases, users are used to: CREATE TABLE ... (SQL) CREATE INDEX ... (SQL) CREATE FULLTEXT INDEX ... (Transact-SQL) CREATE TABLE (... FULLTEXT ...) (MySQL) CREATE INDEX ... INDEXTYPE IS ctxsys.context PARAMETERS ... (Oracle Text) And users are constantly complaining that PostgreSQL doesn't have fulltext indexing capabilities (if they don't know about tsearch2) or about how hard it is to use tsearch2. > SELECT create_fulltext_mapping(cfgname, ARRAY['lex..','..'], > ARRAY['...']) is readable. Hardly. Because it's not like SQL: - it's counter-intuitive to have to SELECT, when you want to CREATE something. - it's confusing to have two actions (select create) - why do I have to write ARRAYs to list parameters? - it'snot obvious what you're selecting (return value?) - you have to keep track of the brackets, which can easily get messed up with two levels of them. Especially if the command gets multiple lines long. > I agree so enhancing parser oabout not standard construct isn't good. Generally? Wow! This would mean PostgreSQL would always lack behind other RDBSes, regarding ease of use. Please don't do that! Regards Markus
>
> And users are constantly complaining that PostgreSQL doesn't have
> fulltext indexing capabilities (if they don't know about tsearch2) or
> about how hard it is to use tsearch2.
>
>> SELECT create_fulltext_mapping(cfgname, ARRAY['lex..','..'],
>> ARRAY['...']) is readable.
>
> Hardly. Because it's not like SQL:
I have to agree here.
SELECT create_fulltext_mapping(cfgname, ARRAY['lex..','..'],
ARRAY['...']) is readable.
Is a total no op. We might as well just leave it in contrib.
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
> > And users are constantly complaining that PostgreSQL doesn't have > > fulltext indexing capabilities (if they don't know about tsearch2) or > > about how hard it is to use tsearch2. > > > >> SELECT create_fulltext_mapping(cfgname, ARRAY['lex..','..'], > >> ARRAY['...']) is readable. > > > > Hardly. Because it's not like SQL: > >I have to agree here. > >SELECT create_fulltext_mapping(cfgname, ARRAY['lex..','..'], >ARRAY['...']) is readable. > >Is a total no op. We might as well just leave it in contrib. > I am for integration tsearch to core, why not. But I don't see reason for special syntax. Stored procedures is exactly good tool for it. Fulltext is standarised in SQL/MM, SQL Multimedia and Application Packages, Part 2: Full-Text Why implement extensive proprietary solution? If our soulution is proprietary, then so it is simple and cheap and doesn't complicate future conformance with ANSI SQL. Regards Pavel Stehule _________________________________________________________________ Najdete si svou lasku a nove pratele na Match.com. http://www.msn.cz/
Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> > And users are constantly complaining that PostgreSQL doesn't have
>> > fulltext indexing capabilities (if they don't know about tsearch2) or
>> > about how hard it is to use tsearch2.
>> >
>> >> SELECT create_fulltext_mapping(cfgname, ARRAY['lex..','..'],
>> >> ARRAY['...']) is readable.
>> >
>> > Hardly. Because it's not like SQL:
>>
>> I have to agree here.
>>
>> SELECT create_fulltext_mapping(cfgname, ARRAY['lex..','..'],
>> ARRAY['...']) is readable.
>>
>> Is a total no op. We might as well just leave it in contrib.
>>
>
> I am for integration tsearch to core, why not. But I don't see reason
> for special syntax. Stored procedures is exactly good tool for it.
I am not talking about stored procedures. I am talking about a very
ugly, counter intuitive syntax above.
Initializing full text should be as simple as:
CREATE INDEX foo USING FULLTEXT(bar);
(or something similar)
Or:
CREATE TABLE foo (id serial, names text FULLTEXT);
Anything more complicated is a waste of cycles.
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
>I am not talking about stored procedures. I am talking about a very >ugly, counter intuitive syntax above. > >Initializing full text should be as simple as: > >CREATE INDEX foo USING FULLTEXT(bar); > >(or something similar) > >Or: > >CREATE TABLE foo (id serial, names text FULLTEXT); > >Anything more complicated is a waste of cycles. > >Joshua D. Drake I agree. Question: what about multilanguage fulltext. CREATE INDEX foo USING FULLTEXT(bar) [ WITH czech_dictionary ]; CREATE TABLE foo (id serial, names text FULLTEXT [ (czech_dictionary, english_dictionary) ] ); all others can we do via SP. Pavel Stehule _________________________________________________________________ Citite se osamele? Poznejte nekoho vyjmecneho diky Match.com. http://www.msn.cz/
>> CREATE TABLE foo (id serial, names text FULLTEXT); >> >> Anything more complicated is a waste of cycles. >> >> Joshua D. Drake > > I agree. Question: what about multilanguage fulltext. > > CREATE INDEX foo USING FULLTEXT(bar) [ WITH czech_dictionary ]; > CREATE TABLE foo (id serial, names text FULLTEXT [ (czech_dictionary, > english_dictionary) ] ); > > all others can we do via SP. That works for me with perhaps a default mapping to locales? For example if our locale is en_us.UTF8 we are pretty assured that we are using english. Joshua D. Drake > > Pavel Stehule > > _________________________________________________________________ > Citite se osamele? Poznejte nekoho vyjmecneho diky Match.com. > http://www.msn.cz/ > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
> > >> CREATE TABLE foo (id serial, names text FULLTEXT); > >> > >> Anything more complicated is a waste of cycles. > >> > >> Joshua D. Drake > > > > I agree. Question: what about multilanguage fulltext. > > > > CREATE INDEX foo USING FULLTEXT(bar) [ WITH czech_dictionary ]; > > CREATE TABLE foo (id serial, names text FULLTEXT [ (czech_dictionary, > > english_dictionary) ] ); > > > > all others can we do via SP. > >That works for me with perhaps a default mapping to locales? For example >if our locale is en_us.UTF8 we are pretty assured that we are using >english. > 90% yes. 10% no. In czech typical task: find word without accents, or find german, english, czech stemmed word in multilanguage documents (or different languages depend on topology). Lot of databases are minimal bilanguagal (in czech rep. german and czech). Pavel p.s. missing collates is big minus for PostgreSQL in eu (we have some workarounds) _________________________________________________________________ Najdete si svou lasku a nove pratele na Match.com. http://www.msn.cz/
On Thursday 25 January 2007 12:51, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
> > On 1/25/07, Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru> wrote:
> >> It's should clear enough for now - dump data from old db and load into
> >> new one.
> >> But dump should be without any contrib/tsearch2 related functions.
> >
> > Upgrading from 8.1.x to 8.2.x was not tivial because of very trivial
> > change in API (actually not really API but the content of "pg_ts_*"
> > tables): russian snowball stemming function was forked to 2 different
> > ones, for koi8 and utf8 encodings. So, as I dumped my pg_ts_* tables
> > data (to keep my tsearch2 settings), I saw errors during restoration
> > (btw, why didn't you keep old russian stemmer function name as a
> > synonym to koi8 variant?) -- so, I had to change my dump file
> > manually, because I didn't manage to follow "tsearch2 best practices"
>
> sed and grep did the trick.
>
> > (to use some kind of "bootstrap" script that creates tsearch2
> > configuration you need from default one -- using several INSERTs and
> > UPDATEs). And there were no upgrade notes for tsearch2.
>
> This is unfair, you promised to write upgrade notes and we discussed the
> problem with name change before release and I rely on you. It was my fault,
> of course.
>
I got bit by this today and, afaict the best solution for the status quo would
be to change the install schema to something like tsearch2, which would then
allow for much easier dump and restore handling.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Am Donnerstag, 22. Februar 2007 18:07 schrieb Markus Schiltknecht: > > I agree so enhancing parser oabout not standard construct isn't good. > > Generally? Wow! This would mean PostgreSQL would always lack behind > other RDBSes, regarding ease of use. Please don't do that! You are confusing making a full-text index and configuring the full-text engine. Tsearch already gives you a standard CREATE INDEX variant to do the former. The discussion here is about the latter, and notably Oracle uses functions there. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Am Donnerstag, 22. Februar 2007 14:33 schrieb Teodor Sigaev: > \df says only types of arguments, not a meaning. Only if you don't provide argument names. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/