Re: GIN - Generalized Inverted iNdex. Try 3.
От | Teodor Sigaev |
---|---|
Тема | Re: GIN - Generalized Inverted iNdex. Try 3. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 44522A63.2090904@sigaev.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: GIN - Generalized Inverted iNdex. Try 3. (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: GIN - Generalized Inverted iNdex. Try 3.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> We could probably fix that by adding it to the stats structs that are > passed around during VACUUM. I'd rather not hardwire a GIN special case > in vacuum.c as per your "quick hack". ok. amskipcheck? > Here I think it would be best to add an indclusterable column to pg_am. GIN is _always_ clustered, it returns pointers to heap in ascending order. > Actually, does clustering on *any* current index type except btree make > sense? None of them have semantically interesting index ordering I don't know about hash index, but for GiST clustering can speed up query's execution. As I understand your point, cluster on btree very useful on range searches ( BETWEEN clause ), but don't significantly speeds up queries with OR ( id=1 or id=500000 or id=6000000 ). Several GiST's opclasses has similar behaviour: * ltree with queries to search descendant of node. ltree uses B-tree like structure * R-tree - contains operation In any case, clustering can prevent from chaotic seeks on disk. So, two columns about clustering? amclustered amclusterable -- Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: