| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
| Subject: | Re: GIN vs. Partial Indexes |
| Date: | 2010-10-09 02:23:15 |
| Message-ID: | 417D10D7-0AA8-4B0C-94E2-4A2DE863051E@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Oct 8, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> How so? In a typical application, there would not likely be very many
> such rows --- we're talking about cases like documents containing zero
> indexable words. In any case, the problem right now is that GIN has
> significant functional limitations because it fails to make any index
> entry at all for such rows. Even if there are in fact no such rows
> in a particular table, it has to fail on some queries because there
> *might* be such rows. There is no way to fix those limitations
> unless it undertakes to have some index entry for every row. That
> will take disk space, but it's *necessary*. (To adapt the old saw,
> I can make this index arbitrarily small if it doesn't have to give
> the right answers.)
And could you not keep it the same with a partial index?
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-09 03:08:05 | Re: Keywords in pg_hba.conf should be field-specific |
| Previous Message | Brendan Jurd | 2010-10-09 02:13:07 | Keywords in pg_hba.conf should be field-specific |