| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Abe Ingersoll <abe(at)abe(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Fixing GIN for empty/null/full-scan cases |
| Date: | 2011-01-15 01:54:51 |
| Message-ID: | 16000.1295056491@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> So some questions:
> * Is something seriously wrong with GiST index creation on integer[] columns?
> * Why does GIN performance appear to be no better than table scans on integer[] columns?
> * Why does it take 3-4x longer to create the GIN than the GiST index on tsvector? I thought that GIN was supposed to be faster to update
Hard to comment on any of this without a concrete example (including
data) to look at. Given the bugs we've recently found in the picksplit
algorithms for other contrib modules, I wouldn't be too surprised if the
sucky GiST performance traced to a similar bug in intarray. But I'm not
excited about devising my own test case.
One other point here is that GIN index build time is quite sensitive to
maintenance_work_mem --- what did you have that set to?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-15 02:00:56 | Re: Add support for logging the current role |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2011-01-15 01:44:40 | Re: Add support for logging the current role |