Re: Todo item: Support amgettuple() in GIN
От | Andreas Karlsson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Todo item: Support amgettuple() in GIN |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 52988F34.2020407@proxel.se обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Todo item: Support amgettuple() in GIN (Antonin Houska <antonin.houska@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Todo item: Support amgettuple() in GIN
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/29/2013 09:54 AM, Antonin Houska wrote: > On 11/29/2013 01:13 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote: > >> When doing partial matching the code need to be able to return the union >> of all TIDs in all the matching posting trees in TID order (to be able >> to do AND and OR operations with multiple search keys later). It does >> this by traversing them posting tree after posting tree and collecting >> them all in a TIDBitmap which is later iterated over. > > I think it's not a plain union. My understanding is that - to evaluate a > single key (typically array) - you first need to get all the TID streams > for that key (i.e. one posting list/tree per element of the key array) > and then iterate all these streams in parallel and 'merge' them using > consistent() function. That's how I understand ginget.c:keyGetItem(). For partial matches the merging is done in two steps: first a simple union of all the streams per key and then second merging those union streams using the consistent() function. It is the first step that can be lossy. > So the problem of partial match is (IMO) that there can be too many TID > streams to merge - much more than the number of elements of the key array. Agreed. -- Andreas Karlsson
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: