| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
| Subject: | Re: GIN vs. Partial Indexes |
| Date: | 2010-11-12 18:11:06 |
| Message-ID: | 201011121811.oACIB6Q15546@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 10/08/2010 02:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> In any case, I would expect that GIN could actually do this quite
> >> efficiently. What we'd probably want is a concept of a "null word",
> >> with empty indexable rows entered in the index as if they contained the
> >> null word. So there'd be just one index entry with a posting list of
> >> however many such rows there are.
>
> So, given the lack of objections to this idea, do we have a plan for
> fixing GIN?
Is this a TODO?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-11-12 18:14:51 | Re: GIN vs. Partial Indexes |
| Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2010-11-12 18:10:57 | Re: knngist questions |