From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
Cc: | aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Patch: add conversion from pg_wchar to multibyte |
Date: | 2012-04-30 18:07:26 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY_Gq8=prn9EUZRLTrR1RyFJzU9f2MrdPvNSUtLSJGo3g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> wrote:
> Perhaps I'm too early with these tests, but FWIW I reran my earlier test program against three
> instances. (the patches compiled fine, and make check was without problem).
These tests results seem to be more about the pg_trgm changes than the
patch actually on this thread, unless I'm missing something. But the
executive summary seems to be that pg_trgm might need to be a bit
smarter about costing the trigram-based search, because when the
number of trigrams is really big, using the index is
counterproductive. Hopefully that's not too hard to fix; the basic
approach seems quite promising.
(I haven't actually looked at the patch on this thread yet to
understand how it fits in; the above comments are about the pg_trgm
regex stuff.)
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-04-30 18:19:44 | Re: precision and scale functions for numeric |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-04-30 17:38:52 | Re: Future In-Core Replication |