From: | Ben <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Todd A(dot) Cook" <tcook(at)blackducksoftware(dot)com> |
Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Postgresql-General mailing list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: scoring differences between bitmasks |
Date: | 2005-10-02 18:02:19 |
Message-ID: | F8B339D3-2D35-4C9B-9FCC-776CA4776C87@silentmedia.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hrm, I don't understand. Can you give me an example with some
reasonably sized vectors?
On Oct 2, 2005, at 10:59 AM, Todd A. Cook wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Try breaking the vector into 4 bigint columns and building a multi-
> column
> index, with index columns going from the most evenly distributed to
> the
> least. Depending on the distribution of your data, you may only
> need 2
> or 3 columns in the index. If you can cluster the table in that
> order,
> it should be really fast. (This structure is a tabular form of a
> linked
> trie.)
>
> -- todd
>
>
> Ben wrote:
>
>> Yes, that's the straightforward way to do it. But given that my
>> vectors are 256 bits in length, and that I'm going to eventually
>> have about 4 million of them to search through, I was hoping
>> greater minds than mine had figured out how to do it faster, or
>> how compute some kind of indexing....... somehow.
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Samik Raychaudhuri | 2005-10-02 18:08:00 | Re: Portable PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2005-10-02 18:00:52 | Re: Portable PostgreSQL |