Re: On-disk bitmap index patch
От | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: On-disk bitmap index patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 44C6652C.1020203@agliodbs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: On-disk bitmap index patch (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: On-disk bitmap index patch
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom, > (I'm also wondering whether this > doesn't overlap the use-case for GIN.) It does not. GIN is strictly for multi-value fields. I can think of applications where either GIN or Bitmaps would be an option, but for the majority, they wouldn't. One particular compelling situation for on-disk bitmaps is for terabyte tables where a btree index would not fit into memory. Index performance for an index which is 10x or more the size of RAM really sucks ... I can come up with some test results if you doubt that. Also note that "low cardinality" is relative. For a 1 billion row table, a column with 10,000 values is "low-cardinality", having around 100,000 rows per value ... but that's still 0.01% of the table per value, making index use still applicable. --Josh
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: