Re: Fixing GIN for empty/null/full-scan cases

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Abe Ingersoll <abe(at)abe(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Fixing GIN for empty/null/full-scan cases
Date: 2011-01-15 01:54:51
Message-ID: 16000.1295056491@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> So some questions:

> * Is something seriously wrong with GiST index creation on integer[] columns?

> * Why does GIN performance appear to be no better than table scans on integer[] columns?

> * Why does it take 3-4x longer to create the GIN than the GiST index on tsvector? I thought that GIN was supposed to be faster to update

Hard to comment on any of this without a concrete example (including
data) to look at. Given the bugs we've recently found in the picksplit
algorithms for other contrib modules, I wouldn't be too surprised if the
sucky GiST performance traced to a similar bug in intarray. But I'm not
excited about devising my own test case.

One other point here is that GIN index build time is quite sensitive to
maintenance_work_mem --- what did you have that set to?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-01-15 02:00:56 Re: Add support for logging the current role
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2011-01-15 01:44:40 Re: Add support for logging the current role