Re: code question: storing INTO relation

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: code question: storing INTO relation
Date: 2004-11-14 22:59:16
Message-ID: 1100473156.23420.12.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, 2004-11-14 at 11:06 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> HASH - works OK, but a pain to administer, no huge benefit in using

At least in theory, I think this could offer better performance for
equality searches than b+-tree. Given how common those kinds of queries
are, I still think hash indexes are worth putting some time into. My
guess is that their relatively poor performance at present (relative to
b+-trees) is just a reflection of how much more tuning and design work
has gone into the b+-tree code than the hash code.

> R-TREE - slightly broken in places, limited in usablity

I agree. I hope that when we have a good GiST infrastructure,
implementing rtree via GiST will offer performance that is as good as or
better than the builtin rtree.

> GiST - index of choice for PostGIS, TSearch2, in need of optimization

I'm working on adding page-level locking and WAL safety, although this
is a pretty difficult project. Gavin and I are also looking at
algorithms for bulk loading GiST indexes, although I'm not yet sure how
possible that will be.

-Neil

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-11-14 23:29:43 Re: postmaster segfaults with HUGE table
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2004-11-14 20:13:59 Re: MAX/MIN optimization via rewrite (plus query rewrites