| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dolafi, Tom" <dolafit(at)janelia(dot)hhmi(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Oleg Bartunov" <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, "Teodor Sigaev" <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: rtree/gist index taking enormous amount of space in 8.2.3 |
| Date: | 2007-06-29 18:38:11 |
| Message-ID: | 6932.1183142291@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"Dolafi, Tom" <dolafit(at)janelia(dot)hhmi(dot)org> writes:
> In the mean time I've dropped the index which has resulted in overall
> performance gain on queries against the table, but we have not tested
> the part of the application which would utilize this index.
I noted that with the same (guessed-at) distribution of fmin/fmax, the
index size remains reasonable if you change the derived boxes to
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION boxrange(integer, integer)
RETURNS box AS
'SELECT box (point($1, $1), point($2, $2))'
LANGUAGE 'sql' STRICT IMMUTABLE;
which makes sense from the point of view of geometric intuition: instead
of a bunch of very tall, mostly very narrow, mostly overlapping boxes,
you have a bunch of small square boxes spread out along a line. So it
stands to reason that a geometrically-motivated index structure would
work a lot better on the latter. I don't know though whether your
queries can be adapted to work with this. What was the index being used
for, exactly?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dolafi, Tom | 2007-06-29 18:44:31 | Re: rtree/gist index taking enormous amount of space in 8.2.3 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-29 18:30:09 | Re: rtree/gist index taking enormous amount of space in 8.2.3 |