| From: | Emre Hasegeli <emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SP-GiST support for inet datatypes |
| Date: | 2016-03-09 09:00:17 |
| Message-ID: | CAE2gYzxcmz_o9SnGBv2De3gK2ECodxHdsDctntLkMSLsswuYDA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> Spgist index tree is much better than gist - 12149 pages vs 1334760 !
I assume this is the reason why it is bigger. IP addresses are very
well suited to SP-GiST. They naturally do not overlap.
> I also noticed, that spgist is much faster than gist for other inet
> operators. I'd like to see in 9.6.
Unfortunately, I missed the deadline of the last commitfest. It is on
the next one:
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2016-03-09 09:12:27 | Re: pgbench small bug fix |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2016-03-09 08:35:10 | Re: PATCH: index-only scans with partial indexes |