Re: Extreme bloating of intarray GiST indexes
| От | Alexander Korotkov |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Extreme bloating of intarray GiST indexes |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | BANLkTinpTkkkgWeUGtW4kYevMP-wHUM=VQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Extreme bloating of intarray GiST indexes (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Extreme bloating of intarray GiST indexes
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
I seem to recall some discussion recently about documenting where youshould cut over to using "gist__intbig_ops" --- IIRC, it wasn't all that
"big" by modern standards. But it doesn't look like any such change made
it into the docs. Should we reopen that discussion?
Actually, I don't see a reason to make decision between gist__int_ops and gist__intbig_ops. Because we can choose between full enumeration and lossy bitmap on the fly on the base of array length (when some length threshold achived array is converted to bitmap). If this problem is urgent, I can write a patch with opclass that would seem more suitable to be default to me, when I'll have a time for it.
With best regards,
Alexander Korotkov.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: