Possibly moving to InnoDB
Bradley Baetz
bbaetz at acm.org
Tue Aug 8 07:59:59 UTC 2006
On 08/08/06, Myk Melez <myk at mozilla.org> wrote:
> Right. One way to do this would be to duplicate both summary and comment
> data in a separate table specifically designed for fulltext indexing, so
> that both bugs and longdescs can get transactions and referential integrity,
> i.e.:
Or we could use a database that doesn't suck.
> The other advantage to this approach is that it
> resolves a longstanding problem with our fulltext indexes (because of
> MySQL's inability to include columns from different tables in a fulltext
> index) that reduces their utility (even with our hacks to partially work
> around the problem).
Or we could... :)
> Otherwise, we could roll our own fulltext engine or use something like
> Senna.
I don't really think we want to go down that path. Postgres has one,
oracle has one, mysql has one. The different syntax issues only
happens when doing 'complicated' stuff - simple 'find word in
substring' can just be handled by bugzilla. If a user tries multiple
fulltext queries, and the backend db doesn't support them, we can't
help.
(Note that postgres' tsearch2 is actually implented via a separate
table and triggers. Thats a bit ugly, but we don't have to care - it
Just Works)
Bradley
More information about the developers
mailing list