From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: GIN fast insert |
Date: | 2009-02-24 19:56:25 |
Message-ID: | 27040.1235505385@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 00:18 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> It only took me about 5 minutes to come up with a test case against CVS
>> HEAD where disabling index scans resulted in a significant dropoff in
>> performance. Here it is:
> On the other hand, Teodor showed a typical use case and a very
> substantial performance gain:
Yeah. Whatever we do here is a tradeoff (and whether Robert likes it
or not, reliability and code maintainability weigh heavily in the
tradeoff).
> I wonder how many people really use GIN with non-bitmap scans for some
> benefit? And even if the benefit exists, does the planner have a way to
> identify those cases reliably, or does it have to be done manually?
A relevant point there is that most of the estimator functions for
GIN-amenable operators are just smoke and mirrors; so if the planner
is making a good choice between indexscan and bitmapscan at all, it's
mostly luck. This might get better someday, but not in 8.4.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-02-24 19:59:37 | Re: Hot standby, recovery procs |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-02-24 19:30:48 | Re: Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches |