Re: [PERFORM] GIST versus GIN indexes for intarrays

From: Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>
To: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Rusty Conover <rconover(at)infogears(dot)com>, psql performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] GIST versus GIN indexes for intarrays
Date: 2009-02-13 14:04:58
Message-ID: 20090213140458.GA4134@it.is.rice.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 04:12:53PM +0300, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>> The short-term workaround for Rusty is probably to create his GIN
>> index using the intarray-provided gin__int_ops opclass. But it
> Right
>> seems to me that we ought to get rid of intarray's @> and <@ operators
>> and have the module depend on the core anyarray operators, just as we
>> have already done for = and <>. Comments?
> Agree, will do. Although built-in anyarray operators have ~N^2 behaviour
> while intarray's version - only N*log(N)
Is there a way to have the buily-in anyarray opeators be N*log(N)?

Ken

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua Brindle 2009-02-13 14:07:53 Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1530)
Previous Message Robert Haas 2009-02-13 14:02:54 Re: GIN fast insert

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matthew Wakeling 2009-02-13 14:45:54 Re: dissimilar drives in Raid10 , does it make difference ?
Previous Message Rajesh Kumar Mallah 2009-02-13 13:30:50 dissimilar drives in Raid10 , does it make difference ?