Re: Small GIN optimizations (after 9.4)

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Small GIN optimizations (after 9.4)
Date: 2014-02-11 22:58:06
Message-ID: 20140211225806.GO2289@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 02:17:12PM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 8:31 PM, PostgreSQL - Hans-J rgen Sch nig <
> postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
>
> i think there is one more thing which would be really good in GIN and which
> would solve a ton of issues.
> atm GIN entries are sorted by item pointer.
> if we could sort them by a "column" it would fix a couple of real work
> issues such as ...
>
> SELECT ... FROM foo WHERE "tsearch_query" ORDER BY price DESC LIMIT
> 10
>
> ... or so.
> it many cases you want to search for a, say, product and find the cheapest
> / most expensive one.
> if the tsearch_query yields a high number of rows (which it often does) the
> subsequent sort will kill you.
>
>
> This is not intended to be a small change. However, some solution might be
> possible in post 9.4 gin improvements or in new secret indexing project which
> will be presented at PGCon :-)

Would any of the listed changes cause backward-incompatible changes to
the on-disk format, causing problems for pg_upgrade?

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

+ Everyone has their own god. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2014-02-11 23:04:43 Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2014-02-11 22:40:14 Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans