| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Sergey Burladyan <eshkinkot(at)gmail(dot)com>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why creating GIN table index is so slow than inserting data into empty table with the same index? |
| Date: | 2009-03-24 13:45:13 |
| Message-ID: | 26264.1237902313@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think a reasonable solution for this might be to keep an eye on
>> maxdepth and force a flush if that gets too large (more than a few
>> hundred, perhaps?). Something like this:
> I fooled around with a balanced tree, which solved the problem but
> unfortunately made the unsorted case slower.
Yeah, rebalancing the search tree would fix that, but every balanced
tree algorithm I know about is complicated, slow, and needs extra
memory. It's really unclear that it'd be worth the trouble for a
transient data structure like this one.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Uhl | 2009-03-24 18:47:36 | Re: High CPU Utilization |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-03-24 11:07:34 | Re: Why creating GIN table index is so slow than inserting data into empty table with the same index? |