Re: 9.6 phrase search distance specification

From: Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ryan Pedela <rpedela(at)datalanche(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 9.6 phrase search distance specification
Date: 2016-08-11 15:27:59
Message-ID: CAF4Au4wFQWRBP3_1m49af2JUxQ8A+Q+x4aELtb3i2oAz=cArvQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Ryan Pedela <rpedela(at)datalanche(dot)com> wrote:
>
>

> I would say that it is worth it to have a "phrase slop" operator (Apache
> Lucene terminology). Proximity search is extremely useful for improving
> relevance and phrase slop is one of the tools to achieve that.
>

It'd be great if you explain what is "phrase slop". I assume it's not
about search, but about relevance.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2016-08-11 15:32:11 Re: new autovacuum criterion for visible pages
Previous Message Tobias Bussmann 2016-08-11 14:43:58 Re: extract text from XML