Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [PERFORM] GIST versus GIN indexes for intarrays

From: Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>
To: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Rusty Conover <rconover(at)infogears(dot)com>,psql performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] GIST versus GIN indexes for intarrays
Date: 2009-02-13 14:04:58
Message-ID: 20090213140458.GA4134@it.is.rice.edu (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-performance
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 04:12:53PM +0300, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>> The short-term workaround for Rusty is probably to create his GIN
>> index using the intarray-provided gin__int_ops opclass.  But it
> Right
>> seems to me that we ought to get rid of intarray's @> and <@ operators
>> and have the module depend on the core anyarray operators, just as we
>> have already done for = and <>.  Comments?
> Agree, will do. Although built-in anyarray operators have ~N^2 behaviour 
> while intarray's version - only N*log(N)
Is there a way to have the buily-in anyarray opeators be N*log(N)?

Ken

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Matthew WakelingDate: 2009-02-13 14:45:54
Subject: Re: dissimilar drives in Raid10 , does it make difference ?
Previous:From: Rajesh Kumar MallahDate: 2009-02-13 13:30:50
Subject: dissimilar drives in Raid10 , does it make difference ?

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Joshua BrindleDate: 2009-02-13 14:07:53
Subject: Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1530)
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2009-02-13 14:02:54
Subject: Re: GIN fast insert

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group