From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: code question: storing INTO relation |
Date: | 2004-11-14 22:59:16 |
Message-ID: | 1100473156.23420.12.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2004-11-14 at 11:06 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> HASH - works OK, but a pain to administer, no huge benefit in using
At least in theory, I think this could offer better performance for
equality searches than b+-tree. Given how common those kinds of queries
are, I still think hash indexes are worth putting some time into. My
guess is that their relatively poor performance at present (relative to
b+-trees) is just a reflection of how much more tuning and design work
has gone into the b+-tree code than the hash code.
> R-TREE - slightly broken in places, limited in usablity
I agree. I hope that when we have a good GiST infrastructure,
implementing rtree via GiST will offer performance that is as good as or
better than the builtin rtree.
> GiST - index of choice for PostGIS, TSearch2, in need of optimization
I'm working on adding page-level locking and WAL safety, although this
is a pretty difficult project. Gavin and I are also looking at
algorithms for bulk loading GiST indexes, although I'm not yet sure how
possible that will be.
-Neil
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-11-14 23:29:43 | Re: postmaster segfaults with HUGE table |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-11-14 20:13:59 | Re: MAX/MIN optimization via rewrite (plus query rewrites |