| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: GIN fast insert |
| Date: | 2009-02-13 15:41:44 |
| Message-ID: | 2529.1234539704@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>> But I don't believe that is popular use-case. In most cases, GIN is used
>> with bitmap scan. Your emails are so convincing and I'll remove support
>> amgettuple interface in GIN.
> SELECT * FROM foo WHERE t @@ query LIMIT 100
> might be a fairly common use case.
[ shrug... ] The proposed implementation fails to be particularly
fast-start anyway, since it will process the entire pending queue
before returning anything to the executor.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2009-02-13 15:47:22 | Re: GIN fast insert |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-02-13 15:18:29 | Re: GIN fast insert |