From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
---|---|
To: | "Greg Smith" <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Yeb Havinga" <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Matthew Wakeling" <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>, "Eliot Gable" <egable+pgsql-performance(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: B-Heaps |
Date: | 2010-06-18 18:44:22 |
Message-ID: | 4C1B783602000025000325CE@gw.wicourts.gov |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> concerning gist indexes:
>
> 1) with larger block sizes and hence, larger # entries per gist
> page, results in more generic keys of those pages. This in turn
> results in a greater number of hits, when the index is queried, so
> a larger part of the index is scanned. NB this has nothing to do
> with caching / cache sizes; it holds for every IO model. Tests
> performed by me showed performance improvements of over 200%.
> Since then implementing a speedup has been on my 'want to do
> list'.
As I recall, the better performance in your tests was with *smaller*
GiST pages, right? (The above didn't seem entirely clear on that.)
-Kevin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-18 19:41:05 | Re: B-Heaps |
Previous Message | Yeb Havinga | 2010-06-18 18:30:17 | Re: B-Heaps |