| From: | "Steinar H(dot) Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_trgm performance |
| Date: | 2007-02-24 00:31:05 |
| Message-ID: | 20070224003105.GA11010@uio.no |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 12:09:41AM +0100, Guillaume Smet wrote:
> Could you try to see if the GIN implementation of pg_trgm is faster in
> your cases?
I'm sorry, I can no longer remember where I needed pg_trgm. Simple testing of
your patch seems to indicate that the GiN version is about 65% _slower_ (18ms
vs. 30ms) for a test data set I found lying around, but I remember that on
the data set I needed it, the GIST version was a lot slower than that (think
3-400ms). The 18 vs. 30ms test is a random Amarok database, on 8.2.3
(Debian).
Sorry I couldn't be of more help.
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-02-24 00:56:22 | Re: which Xeon processors don't have the context switching problem |
| Previous Message | Guillaume Smet | 2007-02-23 23:09:41 | Re: pg_trgm performance |