From: | "Tomas Vondra" <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> |
---|---|
To: | obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com |
Cc: | "Tomas Vondra" <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, "Pgsql Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: GIN improvements part2: fast scan |
Date: | 2014-02-03 12:22:41 |
Message-ID: | d863ddcf6d6c716889fa628fc1b78e85.squirrel@sq.gransy.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Oleg,
On 3 Únor 2014, 7:53, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> Tomasa, it'd be nice if you use real data in your testing.
I'm using a mailing list archive (the benchmark is essentially a simple
search engine on top of the archive, implemented using built-in
full-text). So I think this is a quite 'real' dataset, not something
synthetic.
The queries are generated, of course, but I strived to make them as real
as possible.
Sure, this is not a hstore-centric benchmark, but the thread is about GIN
indexes, so I think it's fair.
> One very good application of gin fast-scan is dramatic performance
> improvement of hstore/jsonb @> operator, see slides 57, 58
> http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/postgres/talks/hstore-dublin-2013.pdf.
> I'd like not to lost this benefit :)
Yes, that's something we could/should test, probably. Sadly I don't have a
dataset or a complete real-world test case at hand. Any ideas?
I certainly agree that it'd be very sad to lose the performance gain for
hstore/json. OTOH my fear is that to achieve that gain, we'll noticeably
slow down other important use cases (e.g. full-text search), which is one
of the reasons why I was doing the tests.
regards
Tomas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-02-03 12:36:15 | Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-02-03 12:15:32 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Include planning time in EXPLAIN ANALYZE output. |