From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | adrobj <adrobj(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: GIN: any ordering guarantees for the hits returned? |
Date: | 2007-11-18 17:59:41 |
Message-ID: | 20071118175941.GR28860@fetter.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 07:56:45PM -0800, adrobj wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have a moderately large (~10-20GB) table:
>
> CREATE TABLE msgs (
> msg varchar(2048),
> msg_tsv tsvector,
> posted timestamp
> );
>
> CREATE INDEX msgs_i ON msgs USING gin(msg_tsv);
>
> The table never gets updated (more specifically, it gets re-created
> once a day with no updates in between).
>
> I want to run queries of the following form:
>
> SELECT msg, posted FROM msgs WHERE 'blah blah'::tsquery @@ msg_tsv
> ORDERED BY posted DESC; (with various LIMIT/OFFSET)
>
> Which obviously may get too expensive, for it will cause reading and
> sorting of all rows meeting the condition, i.e. too many disk reads.
>
> On the other hand, (as far as I understand) GIN always produces hits
> already sorted in the insertion order.
>
> So - what if I just populate my table in the order of decreasing
> 'posted', remove the "ORDERED BY" clause and just hope for the best?
> Will the correct ordering be guaranteed?
Ordering is never guaranteed without an ORDER BY, except in the time
between a CLUSTER and the first write operation after it.
> If not, are there any other ideas around?
Rather than assuming you know where problems will arise, do some
profiling and find out where they actually do :)
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oliver Kohll | 2007-11-18 18:13:54 | Fwd: max_fsm_relations |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-11-18 17:59:24 | Re: regexp_replace() function in new version |