From: | Artur Rataj <arataj(at)iitis(dot)gliwice(dot)pl> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: full text index |
Date: | 2000-12-15 18:33:56 |
Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.05.10012151927530.9698-100000@atos |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Artur Rataj wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a question about a full text index.
> I have created such index over a text field. I have stored
> substrings of each word in the text field, so that for `example' they
> would be `example', `xample' and so on to `le'. The index has been
> physically ordered by string, indices were created on it, and `vacuum' was
> performed, and then I tried a statement like:
>
> select fserial from fti where string ~ '^xample';
>
> And it had a speed comparable to a sequential scan of the original table
> using the `~*' operator.
>
> `Explain' for that statement shows:
>
> Index Scan using fti_key on fti
> (cost=19249.90 rows=1 width=4)
>
> The original table has about 4.000 rows, and the full text index
> table has about 1.000.000 rows.
>
> Why the query that uses the full text index is so slow, in compare to
> a sequential scan?
>
> Best regards
>
> Artur Rataj
>
>
Now I have compared the statements more exactly -- the one
that uses fti is much slower:
using fti index, about 150 rows found: about 80s
sequential scan, about 130 rows found: about 5s
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Graham Vickrage | 2000-12-15 18:36:39 | Use of indexes in plpgsql functions |
Previous Message | Brett W. McCoy | 2000-12-15 18:24:11 | Re: readline ?? |