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

Re: contsel and gist

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Ben <midfield(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: contsel and gist
Date: 2010-10-28 17:50:24
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Ben <midfield(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> my guess is that it has to do with the selectivity of the @> operator.  i've looked and noticed that the selectivity functions for @> and other period operators are basically stubs, with constant selectivity.  my questions are :

> 1 - am i wrong in my assessment?  is the constant contsel, areasel, etc hurting us?

The stub selectivity functions definitely suck.

> 2 - how hard would it be to implement contsel et al for period data types?

If it were easy, it'd likely have been done already :-(

However, having said that: the constant value of the stub contsel
function is intended to be small enough to encourage use of an
indexscan.  Maybe we just need to decrease it a bit more.  Have you
investigated what the cutover point is for your queries?

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Garick HamlinDate: 2010-10-28 18:11:05
Subject: Re: plperl arginfo
Previous:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2010-10-28 17:14:21
Subject: Re: Composite Types and Function Parameters

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group