Re: Fixing GIN for empty/null/full-scan cases
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Fixing GIN for empty/null/full-scan cases |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 16000.1295056491@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Fixing GIN for empty/null/full-scan cases (David E. Wheeler <david@kineticode.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Fixing GIN for empty/null/full-scan cases
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com> writes: > So some questions: > * Is something seriously wrong with GiST index creation on integer[] columns? > * Why does GIN performance appear to be no better than table scans on integer[] columns? > * Why does it take 3-4x longer to create the GIN than the GiST index on tsvector? I thought that GIN was supposed to befaster to update Hard to comment on any of this without a concrete example (including data) to look at. Given the bugs we've recently found in the picksplit algorithms for other contrib modules, I wouldn't be too surprised if the sucky GiST performance traced to a similar bug in intarray. But I'm not excited about devising my own test case. One other point here is that GIN index build time is quite sensitive to maintenance_work_mem --- what did you have that set to? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: