| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Abe Ingersoll <abe(at)abe(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Fixing GIN for empty/null/full-scan cases |
| Date: | 2011-01-18 23:53:24 |
| Message-ID: | 9F0315BE-E639-4AD4-8764-D4753F9D186A@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jan 18, 2011, at 3:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The above is "using" the index, but only as a guide to where the rows
> satisfying the partial-index predicate are --- note the lack of any
> index condition in the indexscan node. That's because the query_int
> query is not in fact compatible with the core-provided index opclass.
> We get much better results using intarray's gin__int_ops opclass:
Ah-hah! Confirmed, thank you. I now get 23.2 ms and an index condition. Much, much better.
Thank you! And I think we can use the improved GIN indexes for this app, once 9.1 drops.
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-19 00:03:43 | Extending opfamilies for GIN indexes |
| Previous Message | Simone Aiken | 2011-01-18 23:49:29 | Re: ToDo List Item - System Table Index Clustering |