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
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 |