| From: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Extremely slow intarray index creation and inserts. |
| Date: | 2009-03-19 12:38:38 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.64.0903191531040.31919@sn.sai.msu.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
> Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> writes:
>> We usually say about 200 unique values as a limit for
>> gist_int_ops.
>
> That seems awfully small ... should we make gist_intbig_ops the default,
> or more likely, raise the signature size of both opclasses? Even at a
> crossover point of 10000 I'm not sure that many real-world apps would
> bother considering gist_int_ops.
gist__int_ops doesn't uses signatures, it uses range compression, which
is not lossy, but not capacious. Perhaps, that's why we decided to use it
as default opclass.
Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru),
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia
Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2009-03-19 12:45:28 | Re: Extremely slow intarray index creation and inserts. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-03-19 12:25:26 | Re: Extremely slow intarray index creation and inserts. |