From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Lazarus <andrew(at)pillette(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: index structure for 114-dimension vector |
Date: | 2007-04-21 00:42:35 |
Message-ID: | 46295DFB.7020607@paradise.net.nz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Andrew Lazarus wrote:
> Because I know the 25 closest are going to be fairly close in each
> coordinate, I did try a multicolumn index on the last 6 columns and
> used a +/- 0.1 or 0.2 tolerance on each. (The 25 best are very probably inside
> that hypercube on the distribution of data in question.)
>
> This hypercube tended to have 10-20K records, and took at least 4
> seconds to retrieve. I was a little surprised by how long that took.
> So I'm wondering if my data representation is off the wall.
>
> I should mention I also tried a cube index using gist on all 114
> elements, but CREATE INDEX hadn't finished in 36 hours, when I killed
> it, and I wasn't in retrospect sure an index that took something like
> 6GB by itself would be helpful on a 2GB of RAM box.
>
> MK> I don't think that will work for the vector norm i.e:
>
> MK> |x - y| = sqrt(sum over j ((x[j] - y[j])^2))
>
>
Sorry, in that case it probably *is* worth trying out 6 single column
indexes and seeing if they get bitmap and'ed together...
Mark
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-21 00:44:31 | Re: index structure for 114-dimension vector |
Previous Message | Andrew Lazarus | 2007-04-21 00:28:20 | Re: index structure for 114-dimension vector |