| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Abe Ingersoll <abe(at)abe(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Fixing GIN for empty/null/full-scan cases |
| Date: | 2011-01-18 23:05:07 |
| Message-ID: | 5BF2E275-4903-452A-BBB3-349DA1933288@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jan 18, 2011, at 1:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm noticing also that I get different rowcounts than you do, although
> possibly that has something to do with the partial-index conditions,
> which I'm not trying to duplicate here (all rows in my table pass those
> two tests).
Shall I send you data with the other two columns?:
>> * Why does it take 3-4x longer to create the GIN than the GiST index
>> on tsvector?
>
> Perhaps more maintenance_work_mem would help with that; although the
> fine manual says specifically that GIN text search indexes take about
> three times longer to build than equivalent GiST indexes, so maybe that
> behavior is as designed.
Okay then, thanks.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-18 23:06:09 | Re: test_fsync label adjustments |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-01-18 23:03:24 | Re: test_fsync label adjustments |