Re: GIN vs. Partial Indexes

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>
Subject: Re: GIN vs. Partial Indexes
Date: 2010-11-12 18:11:06
Message-ID: 201011121811.oACIB6Q15546@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 10/08/2010 02:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> In any case, I would expect that GIN could actually do this quite
> >> efficiently. What we'd probably want is a concept of a "null word",
> >> with empty indexable rows entered in the index as if they contained the
> >> null word. So there'd be just one index entry with a posting list of
> >> however many such rows there are.
>
> So, given the lack of objections to this idea, do we have a plan for
> fixing GIN?

Is this a TODO?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2010-11-12 18:14:51 Re: GIN vs. Partial Indexes
Previous Message Teodor Sigaev 2010-11-12 18:10:57 Re: knngist questions