| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, 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 18:14:51 |
| Message-ID: | 4CDD841B.5090202@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/12/2010 01:11 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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?
Yes.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-11-12 18:16:02 | Re: GIN vs. Partial Indexes |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-11-12 18:11:06 | Re: GIN vs. Partial Indexes |