| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | piotrowski(at)prisma(dot)io, Pg Docs <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: "GIN and GiST Index Types" page is about usage in full text search, but looks general purpose |
| Date: | 2022-04-12 22:22:53 |
| Message-ID: | 1008196.1649802173@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 1:28 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Proposed patch attached. The existing text already says "GIN indexes are
>> the preferred text search index type", so I'm not sure we need to go
>> further than that about guiding people which one to use. In particular,
>> since GIN can't support included columns, we can't really deprecate GiST
>> altogether here.
> LGTM.
Done that way, then.
> I don't know enough about the topic to be able to claim that the
> robots.txt solution would also work out well, in about the same way.
> But I suspect that it might, and know that it's a reversible process.
Yeah, it's outside my expertise too.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2022-04-13 18:00:49 | Re: Add further details to ROW SHARE table level lock modes section |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2022-04-12 21:36:47 | Re: incorrect information in documentation |