Re: GIN, partial matches, lossy bitmaps

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: GIN, partial matches, lossy bitmaps
Date: 2009-03-06 02:50:45
Message-ID: 603c8f070903051850u5c5460dai1b90a6cae175e855@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Attached is the remainder of the patch with relatively minor fixes.
> The main change I made is to get rid of the changes in gincostestimate;
> I agree with Robert that it's probably inappropriate to consider the
> current pending-list size during planning.  I haven't really reviewed
> any of the rest of it; this is just to have a clean patch against HEAD.

The changes to config.sgml are not good English and contain
typographical errors. It could also be a bit more informatiave, maybe
something like:

This parameter also specifies the number of insert or updated tuples
needed to trigger <command>VACUUM</> on a <acronym>GIN</acronym>
index. <acronym>GIN</acronym> indexes require <command>VACUUM</>
after insert or update operations because newly inserted tuples are
initially stored in an unsorted pending list.

I still think removing index scans entirely is short-sighted - but I
may be outvoted (then again, no one other than Tom has really
expressed an opinion one way or the other, and I initially agreed with
him until I thought about the performance aspects some more).

...Robert

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2009-03-06 02:51:48 Re: Use array in a dynamic statement
Previous Message Sophie Yang 2009-03-06 01:32:00 Re: Use array in a dynamic statement